Status of Lamanites?

[SeattleUte]

The exchange in the other thread about the arguably misguided good inentions of the Indian Placement Program, and memory of George P. Lee and his image as a Seventy, made me wonder: Is it fair to say the LDS church has for all intents and purposes abandoned the theology that Native Americans are all descendants of Lehi? I'm not being snarky, seriously wondering. It seems to me that if anything part of the apologist strategy is to make greatly less ambitious claims regarding Book of Mormon historicity (FARMS excluded). Do Church leaders ever refer to Native Americans as Lamanites anymore? I bet there's a letter on this somewhere from the First Presidency.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The exchange in the other thread about the arguably misguided good inentions of the Indian Placement Program, and memory of George P. Lee and his image as a Seventy, made me wonder: Is it fair to say the LDS church has for all intents and purposes abandoned the theology that Native Americans are all descendants of Lehi? I'm not being snarky, seriously wondering. It seems to me that if anything part of the apologist strategy is to make greatly less ambitious claims regarding Book of Mormon historicity (FARMS excluded). Do Church leaders ever refer to Native Americans as Lamanites anymore? I bet there's a letter on this somewhere from the First Presidency.

I just checked my handy-dandy Book of Mormon, and that claim is still in the Intro.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The exchange in the other thread about the arguably misguided good inentions of the Indian Placement Program, and memory of George P. Lee and his image as a Seventy, made me wonder: Is it fair to say the LDS church has for all intents and purposes abandoned the theology that Native Americans are all descendants of Lehi? I'm not being snarky, seriously wondering. It seems to me that if anything part of the apologist strategy is to make greatly less ambitious claims regarding Book of Mormon historicity (FARMS excluded). Do Church leaders ever refer to Native Americans as Lamanites anymore? I bet there's a letter on this somewhere from the First Presidency.

I haven't seen any emphasis on the term, but neither have I listened to LDS authorities as they speak in South America, where the claim and term is likely to arise.

The main issue is the introduction of the BoM, where the term "principal ancestors of the American Indian" is used. It certainly isn't emphasized as it may have been in your day. For some reason, that intro was added in 1981. A strange addition where knowledge of genetics should have forewarned them of such a potentially erroneous claim.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

I just checked my handy-dandy Book of Mormon, and that claim is still in the Intro.

And it has been since 1981.

I don't think many within the church claims that every Native American is a full-blooded descendant of Lehi. There are just too many years, too much real estate, too many different civilizations, and too many questions left unanswered to make that kind of a blanket statement. That's not to say that Lehi didn't exist, that Laman and Lemuel werent' his sons, or that many Native Americans are descendants of that particular family.

[Venkman]

Maybe the reason you don't hear it much anymore is because you don't hear much talk about Native Americans in general anymore.

Since SWK died, interest in Native Americans, at least in the U.S. has died down a bit it seems. He was their great champion.

Could be a different story in Central and South America though where NA's are a much bigger % of the population.

There may be some truth to your claim though about making LESS ambitious claims. I believe some or many NA's are descended at least partly from Lehi, but given the current DNA evidence (which IMO doesn't prove what its proponents say it proves), it may be wise to soften the claim that Lamanites are the PRINCIPAL ancestors of NA's.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

And it has been since 1981.

Only since 1981? That's interesting. That was apex of the great age of ambitious claims for Book of Mormon historicity.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Since SWK died, interest in Native Americans, at least in the U.S. has died down a bit it seems. He was their great champion.

Actualy, since Kimball became the prophet. Many thought his presidency would hail the "Day of the Lamanite" but his emphasis was largely on other things.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actualy, since Kimball became the prophet. Many thought his presidency would hail the "Day of the Lamanite" but his emphasis was largely on other things.

His status as Indian Apostle was before my membership. He certainly didn't emphasize that during the portion of his presidency after I joined.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Only since 1981? That's interesting. That was apex of the great age of ambitious claims for Book of Mormon historicity.

That's my understanding, anyway. The current publication of the Bible was done in 1979, I believe, with the Book of Mormon et al. published in a similar format in 1981.

Interestingly enough, my Pearl of Great Price teacher told the class that preparations are underway for a new publication of the scriptures. One of the differences that we will see is drastically reduced chapter headings and a reformed footnote system. He specifically cited excessive interpretation as a reason for the change to the chapter headings, though no names were mentioned. Thought that was interesting.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

That's my understanding, anyway. The current publication of the Bible was done in 1979, I believe, with the Book of Mormon et al. published in a similar format in 1981.

Interestingly enough, my Pearl of Great Price teacher told the class that preparations are underway for a new publication of the scriptures. One of the differences that we will see is drastically reduced chapter headings and a reformed footnote system. He specifically cited excessive interpretation as a reason for the change to the chapter headings, though no names were mentioned. Thought that was interesting.

If they're making major changes, I wish they'd go to a better Bible translation than the KJV.