Lamanite Label

[Sojourn]

In view of the recent controversies concerning the blacks and the priesthood our racial sensitivities have been heightened, I believe. Much has come to light in the past few weeks because of this issue concerning the views of early church members and leaders. With this in mind we may want to consider the usage of the label Lamanite as pointed at Native Americans (north and south). The word has varying meanings over the course of the Book of Mormon. The last meaning was derived thus:

4 Nephi 1:17

17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.

4 Nephi 1:20

20 And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.

In my view the current usage of the label Lamanite is a derogatory term; its last meaning was used to define dissenters in the Book of Mormon. In the Doctrine and Covenants the term is used in 11 versus to define a group of people living apart from the people of the church; Native Americans.

I have Native Americans in my ancestry by marriage. Suppose for a moment you did too. Would you rather hear your ancestors or those living referred to as Lehites or Lamanites? If you choose Lehite then you sense that Lamanite is less respectful.

Clearly in 4Ne1:20 some of the so called Lamanites could have been descendants of Nephi. We do not uplift anyone now living by labeling them as a Lamanite, in my opinion. We have come by the usage of the term by culture just like the early saints did when they used terms different than we use today for people of color.

From what I have seen, I believe that most Native Americans, even in the church, would rather be referred to as Native Americans if any label is used at all. Regardless of what title, name, or reference Native Americans prefer it should be one that implies respect. Lamanite, for the current generation, doesn't do it for me.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Sojourn

[Vort]

This is a fight I don't understand. The usage of the term "Lamanite" is well-established in the restoration and is certainly not derogatory -- quite the opposite. The term is used in the frontispiece of the Book of Mormon, which was written specifically for us; no one in ancient times ever saw it other than the author.

Why take offense at a well-established usage that is not intrinsically offensive? Why look for trouble?

[Dravin]

Would you rather hear your ancestors or those living referred to as Lehites or Lamanites?

I wouldn't care, and if someone wants to call the Scandinavians who actually are my heritage a bunch of pagan, thieving, and pillaging Fjordies, I wouldn't care either.

[Bini]

This whole Lamanite and Lehite thing is confusing to me. What is difference between the two? What relevance does it have to us in the here and now? I get that the Lamanites were a dark skinned people, typically considered Black, but does that include Asians and olive skinned ethnicities as well? I needed to ask this.

[Vort]

This whole Lamanite and Lehite thing is confusing to me. What is difference between the two? What relevance does it have to us in the here and now? I get that the Lamanites were a dark skinned people, typically considered Black, but does that include Asians and olive skinned ethnicities as well? I needed to ask this.

"Lehites" are descendants of Lehi and his party, which would include Lamanites, Lemuelites, Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, and Ishmaelites. These divisions were quickly identified by two groups: Nephites and Lamanites. Historically, the "Nephites" included the people of God, while the "Lamanites" rejected the Hebrew religion and sought to kill the Nephites.

After the coming of Christ, the various groups may have intermingled so much that it no longer made sense to have the tribal divisions. The term "Lamanite" was resurrected to identify groups that split off from the main body of the people of God, not due to their tribal heritage. Soon enough all the people, "Nephite" as well as "Lamanite", were wicked, so the terms ceased to have any real moral connotation.

(By the way, "Samites" are never mentioned even though Sam apparently had children, so we might assume that he had only daughters. The tribal conventions appear to have been patrilineal, so there would have been no tribe associated with Sam.)

Note that the term "Lehite" is never used in the Book of Mormon.

[Suzie]

Well, I have a few things to say about the matter.

1. Just because it might not affect us directly, doesn't mean everybody is or should be okay with the term.

2. A lot of people when they think about Lamanites they automatically think of the words "dark-skinned, loathsome people".

In my opinion, it is how the word is being used and the motive behind it. Is it to put someone down? Is it to imply some sort of racial inferiority? Or is it simply to describe Native Americans? If it is used to describe someone, can we do better?

[Vort]

1. Just because it might not affect us directly, doesn't mean everybody is or should be okay with the term.

No one suggested otherwise.

2. A lot of people when they think about Lamanites they automatically think of the words "dark-skinned, loathsome people".

A lot of people when they think about women (or men, or Scandinavians, or computer programmers) they automatically think of a bunch of disparaging words, too. So what?

In my opinion, it is how the word is being used and the motive behind it. Is it to put someone down? Is it to imply some sort of racial inferiority? Or is it simply to describe Native Americans? If it is used to describe someone, can we do better?

If the term is used in scripture and has been used historically, even recently, in completely acceptable and non-disparaging ways, does some anonymous yahoo complaining on an internet discussion board really merit serious consideration of abandoning the term?

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, I have a few things to say about the matter.

1. Just because it might not affect us directly, doesn't mean everybody is or should be okay with the term.

2. A lot of people when they think about Lamanites they automatically think of the words "dark-skinned, loathsome people".

In my opinion, it is how the word is being used and the motive behind it. Is it to put someone down? Is it to imply some sort of racial inferiority? Or is it simply to describe Native Americans? If it is used to describe someone, can we do better?

Two observations:

1) As I understand it, "lamanites" are heirs to some pretty specific and powerful blessings in the scriptures.

2) I'm not sure the proposed term is better. "Native American"? I'm a native American--I was born here. Why does the OP get to call him/herself "native", but imply that I'm an interloper, just because his/her ancestors immigrated a few centuries before mine did? "Lehite" is OK, I guess; but personally I'm kind of a fan of that verse in the Book of Mormon talking about the century after Christ's visit when there were "no manner of -ites".

3) If you're trying to get people to sympathize with your position in order to effect change, simply saying "well, you're just incapable of understanding how I feel" is a poor way to go about it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I wouldn't care, and if someone wants to call the Scandinavians who actually are my heritage a bunch of pagan, thieving, and pillaging Fjordies, I wouldn't care either.

True. How is "Lamanite" a pejorative, but "Viking" is an honor?

[Dravin]

True. How is "Lamanite" a pejorative, but "Viking" is an honor?

You can draw interesting parallels if you want to go down the "noble savage" rabbit hole concerning certain connotations one could attach to the two terms. Of course one can dip a lot of terms into the vat of unsavory connotations if one cares too.

[Suzie]

JAG, I am the kind of person that tries to make others feel comfortable and if I can help it, I do it. I know it is not practical at all times and with all people but I try to give it a shot. Look how the way we describe African-Americans have changed over the years?

[Dravin]

JAG, I am the kind of person that tries to make others feel comfortable and if I can help it, I do it. I know it is not practical at all times and with all people but I try to give it a shot. Look how the way we describe African-Americans have changed over the years?

How has the way you describe African-Americans changed over the years? Me, I've always just called them black*.

*As an aside is highly amusing to see Americans refer to black Africans or Europeans by the term African-American.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Bini]

How has the way you describe African-Americans changed over the years? Me, I've always just called them black.

I got corrected on this once. I think it used to be "Blacks" for here in the US but the correct term is now "African Americans"? I generally still tend to use Black but if someone of that ethnic group approached me and said it was offensive, I'd apologise and ask what he or she felt was a more appropriate term. I have some Black relatives in England and we've always used the term Black to describe their race and not African English. But come to think of it, I have never really called them Black either, I always just refer to them as being English like the rest of my family there.

[Bini]

Suzie could have been referring to the very much considered derogatory term that was widely used in the past that starts with a "N". I agree, that is a foul word, and I'm glad less people use it.

[Dravin]

Suzie could have been referring to the very much considered derogatory term that was widely used in the past that starts with a "N". I agree, that is a foul word, and I'm glad less people use it.

Oh, did she used to use it? I'm aware of American history in regards to the casual use of that particular term, Suzie's post though is talking about her personal efforts to call people what they want to be called. So I assumed the point of her bringing up history was that such history reflects her personal changes in some way.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

Look how the way we describe African-Americans have changed over the years?

"Pigmentally gifted"?

[Suzie]

I'm aware of American history in regards to the casual use of that particular term, Suzie's post though is talking about her personal efforts to call people what they want to be called. So I assumed the point of her bringing up history was that such history reflects her personal changes in some way.

Let me clarify. I lived in a few countries around the world, I travel. I lived in a couple of them where the majority of the population was Black. In one of these countries, using the term "Negro" is a colloquial way to describe someone who is Black, the locals use it all the time, it is NOT a derogatory term but some of them are clearly not keen when someone who isn't a local and happens to be of another ethnicity uses the term.

So you can say I had a couple of bad experiences so I try to be very careful about how I describe others. I really do not care about being politically correct but I do not wish to offend others. I use both Black and African-American depending on the situation and place.

Oh, did she used to use it?

Nope.

"Pigmentally gifted"?

My goodness! LOL When I read that I was eating a peanut butter bar and almost choked! Man, you're wicked.

[Dravin]

"Pigmentally gifted"?

As a redhead of Scandinavian descent I find the implication that I'm pigmentally ungifted/challenged to be offensive.