Steve,

Sithlord and I were just talking about the lies just spouted in GC about the Native Americans being descended from Jews. Don't you think this would make a great news article? A reporter could contact the heads of the various tribes and see what they think of this falsehood being broadcast around the world.

Just a thought.

Is there a video I can use as proof? I'm First Nations (or native, or aboriginal, or indigenous, or whatever we call ourselves in Canada).

Our tribe lives in the bible belt of Alberta so this may make headlines where I'm at, maybe even the whole province(I didn't realize TSCC still teaches this as fact; I figured after 'god changed his mind about black people', this sort of thing had stopped).

I'm not going to make any promises, as I'm currently attending university, but I'll see if I can do anything.

There was an amazing one on UWTV, University of Washington TV, just recently provided. It is stunning and so very human. It speaks truth to the lies.

A search on RfM should be easy to do

Here is the link
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/1590/In-Laman-s-Terms--Looking-at-Lamanite-Identity

animatheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a video I can use as proof? I'm First
> Nations (or native, or aboriginal, or indigenous,
> or whatever we call ourselves in Canada).
>
> Our tribe lives in the bible belt of Alberta so
> this may make headlines where I'm at, maybe even
> the whole province(I didn't realize TSCC still
> teaches this as fact; I figured after 'god changed
> his mind about black people', this sort of thing
> had stopped).
>
> I'm not going to make any promises, as I'm
> currently attending university, but I'll see if I
> can do anything.


you're called First nations here in the bible belt of Alberta. :)


You'll have to get a tape snip from someone who has taped the conference.

As a matter of fact, the Aboriginal/first nations and the Jewish groups could get together and make a very good campaign out of it.

What would the legal implications toward them entail b/c the aboriginals have as much legal ammunition and backing as the mormons? Maybe more here in the bible belt of Alberta at least.

They could challenge the church to prove it, but beyond that, I doubt either group would do much. It's not like being jewish is a closed group, I don't think Jews would object to the Mormons claming Native Americans were originally Jews. Whether it's true or false, it would be crazy to object to the mere linking of Native Americans and Jews, that would imply that it's offensive to Jews.

Elder Larry Echo Hawk spoke in the afternoon session. You can download video at lds.org.

It's an intriguing thought. What if aboriginal groups throughout North America told the cojcolds to "stop spreading lies and misinformation about us."

Would the Mormons cease and desist? Or would they come up with a new way to spin it?

Could make for a very interesting showdown.

That's what I was thinking. Who is the church to declare this? Especially in light of scientists saying it's false.

What if the ACLU got involved and forced them to prove it or stop saying it.

Why would the ALCU get involved? Also, why would they demand tscc cease and desist? The church has always claimed that lamanites were native americans and polynesians and vise versa. Claming that Native Americans are Jews isn't any more or less inflamatory than claiming they are Lamanites. Since Native American is a pretty generic term, they can link this generic population to any other population in their fiction.

Now if they said XYZ tribe were originally Jews, without any proof, I assume the tribe could try to get them to stop saying it. However, it's not hate speech, it's not defamation, it's just false. Religions say false things about people/groups all the time, I'm not sure the Native Americans can do much to stop them.

Fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, RICO laws, hate crimes

Any others--entitled to opinions, not facts

I think it's absolutely ridiculous for tscc church to be making these claims, but I fail to see how they can be construed as fraud, conspiracy, RICO-related or hate speech.

They are a for profit business that has profited off of teaching white people that Native Americans are sinful descendants of Jews that when they become righteous by Mormon standards will become Pure, white, and delightsome.

Yeah,that load of crap was just fine to sell. Caveat emptor, buyer beware.

No fraud
No conspiracy to commit fraud
No conspiracy to incentivize others to commit fraud on your behalf
No hateful concepts on race

Fail to see anything wrong with the opening of the discussion against teaching lies about Native Americans for profit.

Why is bigotry hard to see for some?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2012 08:11PM by gentlestrength.

It's not about seeing/ignoring bigotry. See my post downthread about my opinion regarding the differences between LDS' offensive portrayal of Native Americans via the Lamanite link, and just issuing a generic, but false, statement that Native Americans have Jewish genes. There's no gain for them in that. If anything, you'd think that might make Native Americans investigate Judaism (doubtful, but just saying...), not LDS.

I KNOW what the church gained by marketing their "connection" to Native Americans, but what do they have to gain by connecting Native Americans to Jews?

Look at the argument from a Jewish perspective. Would Jewish people be offended if a religion taught Palestinians that they were God's chosen ones and that the Jewish people deserved all the bad things that happened because they became wicked? No? So why is it acceptable to teach whites that they are the chosen ones and that the bad things happened and continue to happen to Indians because they were and are wicked?

1 Nephi 13:12-15 claims that because the Indians had become wicked, God's blessing was with Columbus and the Europeans and his wrath was against the Indians. Mormonism teaches that Indians must become Mormon so they can "blossom as the rose” (D&C 49:24).

If a religion taught that God's blessing was with Hitler and his wrath was against the Jews you can be assured that people would be pissed. D&C 57:4 says that Indians are Jews.

Anon - you must have missed the several times I stated that I was Jewish. So I am looking at this from a Jewish perspective.

I understand your points, and I am not disagreeing with your points in their context. However, you are making points about LDS and THEIR offensive beliefs about, and offensive behavior towards, Native Americans. That has NOTHING to do with them saying Native Americans have Jewish origins. That claim is likely false, but it has nothing to do with their previous offenses. You are conflating the two.

Oh, and if you want to try to compare something to Palestine and Israel... it's ironic. Do the palestinians deserve all the wicked things done to them by Israel just because jews are supposedly god's chosen people? This Jew is NOT a zionist and not pro-israel.

I like you.

Mormonism teaches the same nonsense about Jews that it does about Indians.

The bad things that happened to Jews were their own fault and God did it.

2 Nephi 25:16
And after they have been scattered, and the Lord God hath scourged them by other nations for the space of many generations, yea, even down from generation to generation until they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name, with pure hearts and clean hands, and look not forward any more for another Messiah, then, at that time, the day will come that it must needs be expedient that they should believe these things.

Jacob 4:14
But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

It is odd to me that the Southern Poverty Law Center exposes Bryan Fischer while Mormonism teaches the same things that he preaches.

I'm not an attorney at all, but just throwing ideas out. The church stopped baptizing holocaust victims. There is the right to free speech, but not the right to defraud using lies. If Native Americans were upset enough about it, they may stop saying that. Why did they stop the baptisms? Bad PR?

The church had to stop baptizing holocaust victims because it was in bad taste and holocaust victim groups and survivors complained, and yes it was for PR. But keep in mind, there's a big difference between converting a dead holocaust victim to your church, and just linking two groups. They aren't saying that native americans are practicing jews, they aren't taking anything from them (in theory. It's ridiculous, but not disgustingly insensitive). Note: I haven't watched the video, but I will.

But here's the point I've been trying to make/question I've been trying to pose: Who is supposed to be the offended party? Who is the victim of hate speech, etc? Should Jews recoil at the suggestion that Native Americans hail from the original israelites? Or should the Native Americans recoil at the suggestion that they might have Jewish genes? The claim doesn't take anything away from either group, and objecting to it will invite public opinion that one or both groups is ashamed of the link. That would be bad PR for both groups, and the church comes away unscathed.

Just a backgrounder point, in case it matters, these are the opinions of a Jew (not an observant one, but culturally and ethnically).

I am having trouble expressing the point as well as it's expressed in the video, but basically, the Native Americans have experienced and are experiencing prejudice because of the correlation with the Lamanites (bad, dark people) in the BofM. They say that it adds an extra layer of power to the prejudices already in place against them.

Oh, I can TOTALLY understand that. The portrayal of the Lamanites highlights almost every bad, negative stereotype out there for the Native Americans. They all but hop on one foot, patting their mouth making "woo woo woo" sounds. Saying that Native Americans came from Lamanites is horribly offensive. However, the Lamanites are a fictional group and not around today. They aren't even really known of outside the LDS/LDS investigator world. Most importantly the LDS church "owns" (for all intents and purposes) the Lamanite image/story. The Native Americans, like the holocaust victims' survivors, should go directly to the church and demand that they stop claiming Native Americans as "theirs" by linking them to the Lamanites.

But claiming that Lamanites were the original native americans/native americans come from Lamanite genes is not the same as claiming that Native Americans have Jewish genes. The claim is false, but it's not inflamatory like the Lamanite link. Of course the implication of that statement is: lamanites were Jews (as per their fiction), Native Americans are Lamanites, thus Native Americans are Jews. But most non-mormon people have no idea who the Lamanites are or how they are portrayed, and likely have never heard of the Lamanite/Native American connection. So if they just hear Native Americans have Jewish Genes, they won't know about the circular implication, and will just think "I doubt that" and shrug.

I still haven't seen the video, though I read the description. I just don't have my headphones right now, so it will be a while before I can watch an hour-long video. If you can point me to a particularly inflamatory timestamp, I'll check out a clip in the short term.

There are several places where this is touched on so I think you do have to watch it all to get the whole picture. I understand what you are saying about Lamanites - Native Americans vs. Jewish Descent - Native Americans, as far as the implications for the general public. But let me know what you think after watching the video.

Will do! I'll be able to watch it later tonight.

wittyname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But here's the point I've been trying to
> make/question I've been trying to pose: Who is
> supposed to be the offended party? Who is the
> victim of hate speech, etc? Should Jews recoil at
> the suggestion that Native Americans hail from the
> original israelites? Or should the Native
> Americans recoil at the suggestion that they might
> have Jewish genes? The claim doesn't take anything
> away from either group, and objecting to it will
> invite public opinion that one or both groups is
> ashamed of the link. That would be bad PR for both
> groups, and the church comes away unscathed.
>


It's not a matter of being ashamed of being part of another group.
It's a matter of correct information which LDS are presenting as a truth no less and preaching it as a truth - which as you've mentioned is proven false.

It is therefore a false claim.

My best friend is full Blackfoot Indian, and my 2 nieces are 1/2 Cree. They are very, very aware of their heritage and there is often debates in legislation as to on-going reparation damages.
Same as many Jewish folks are very culturally proud of their heritage.
I on the other hand am a 3rd generation immigrant from German/Polish ancestors who couldn't give a flying duck about my heritage.

Not so for many of my aboriginal/Indian friends and in-laws.
They have struggled long and hard for equality and fairness after being terribly mistreated through legislature and fought for their identity. To have false stories by a religion trying to get converts through a false book of mormon group of people is a smear against their honest heritage. Nothing to do with the Jews being ashamed of the Indians or the Indians being ashamed to be Jews. It's about truth vs false advertising.
It's about truth and honesty and correct information.
Not about shame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2012 08:13PM by dec.

I understand what you are saying about Native Americans being proud of their heritage. As for Jews, as I Jew, I can promise you that it takes nothing away from or blemishes Jewish tradition in any way.

In any case, it's a potential PR disaster for the church, but it's not a crime. Religions and false advertising go hand in hand. Jews for Jesus and their recruitment methods comes to mind. Or Scientology's claim that we are all full of aliens and need to spend hundreds of thousands on their courses to get rid of the aliens that are muddling our thoughts and creating havoc in our lives (or whatever). For better or worse, none of these things are crimes. Religion is a legal scam.

If/when the church singles out SPECIFIC tribes, then they have a problem. Possibly not a legal one, but a serious PR one. And if they link those tribes to SPECIFIC jewish ethnic groups, or worse, a biblical hierarchy group, like the Cohens or Levites. Then they'll have a PR problem.

As of now, they are doing nothing illegal. Immoral? yes. More immoral than things other religions do? Nah. Same false statements, different group of people.

wittyname Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> As of now, they are doing nothing illegal.
> Immoral? yes. More immoral than things other
> religions do? Nah. Same false statements,
> different group of people.


Bad PR is an educational upside though, right?

I haven't read Kay Burningham's book yet, but I wonder if she's addressed this as a legal issue?

I wonder if it's considered slander to come out and claim something about a race of people that isn't true?
The point being that they are saying something bad (slanderous?) that Lamanites (Indians) were/are dark and loathsome people, baddies for disobeying God and hurting the "white and delightsome" Nephites. That their skin color would change to a whiter shade when they became better people.

Is there a difference between a single person filing a slander lawsuit compared to an entire race?
Celebrities do it all the time against the media and the media has the freedom of speech behind them. It's free speech as long as it's true and correct. What's the difference if a religion does it?

False advertising is one thing - slander against a people is something altogether different.


I'm not sure I've seen an example similar to Mormonism/Lamanites (first nation/aboriginal/Indians).

Scientology can't be compared. Are the aliens going to sue for misrepresentation? That would be fun if it ever happened though. :) I'm a visual thinker and getting a visual image now of a spaceship landing, slapping a law-suit on Tom Cruise & the gang for incorrect stories attributed to the alien race. We have no way of proving the aliens aren't around (although I have never experienced one personally, lol) but we have scientific proof that the Lamanite story is incorrect.

Off-hand the only thing I can think of that may be similar slander is the frequent reference Christians have that Jews are a "hiss and a bi-word" because they crucified the Christian Savior. Even so, I'm not sure that's a religious tenant that any christian faith is based around, and therefore it's not a great comparison.

The big difference being that Mormonism is based on a foundation of the book of Mo being correct and true, and part of that is slander toward the native American heritage. I once heard a General Authority give a conference talk saying that the Lamanites (Indians) would be as "the rose of Sharon" and blossom in the last days; a symbol that they have changed their evil ways and history. But that's just it, it's mormon history, not *real* history and it is slanderous to a race of people.

I'm trying to think if there is any incorrect slander from a church toward the African American/Black community? Oh, lets see, that one ended in 1978 when the Mormons were pressured into giving the Blacks the priesthood, so that one's over with. I don't think any of the other sects have a slanderous belief tenant as part of their belief foundation against African American people of color.

Perhaps some religions slander gays by claiming that they are bad or sinful people - perhaps using the bible as a reference. Then again, that isn't actually making up a history for the gays in the same manner the mormons have done with the Aboriginal people.

...sorry, I'm just talking out loud now.

Anyway, I'd love to see the pr showdown, that's for sure.
The Canadian First Nations legal would kick butt over the LDS legal. I guarantee that! But, Canadian First Nations do NOT like to be slandered, I suspect more so over a false history slander that didn't even exist.

example: In the recent past, in my city, a group were at their local Tim Horton's coffee shop having a coffee chat. They were charged for slandering the First Nations aboriginal conversation by someone who overheard their conversation at the next table. It even went before Amnesty International, of all groups. I haven't followed the outcome of that one, so I have no idea what transpired, but it did get some P.R. initially.

If you watch the video I linked above, you will see why the ACLU could and should involved.

I'll have to look at it when I'm not mobile. Thanks for the link.

I don't know if I can see it making sense for the ACLU to do anything.

First of all, I'm not sure what action they could take. Get the morg to stop making this claim? Get money for damages?

Second, proving standing for someone to bring the case would be difficult (unless they mention specific groups).

Third, proving definite damages could be very difficult.


I just don't see the US system allowing this to amount to much. Fringe religion says bad things about minority groups? Not exactly uncommon, but probably uncommonly resulting in legal or civil actions of consequence.

I almost wonder if it would help the church to be given more reason to disavow yet another nutty, easily-disproven teaching though. (Not that I think harming the church makes it worthwhile for their racist beliefs to be out there harming indigenous peoples.)

I'd be interested to see if something *did* happen, though, or to hear an actual legal opinion.

hexalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Second, proving standing for someone to bring the
> case would be difficult (unless they mention
> specific groups).


I wonder if specific groups would matter? The book of m made a generalization about ALL the Indians/Lamanites. If anything the groups could band together.




>
> Third, proving definite damages could be very
> difficult.
>



I'm not sure if slander and defamation charges is all that concerned about proving damages. Isn't the slander and error damage enough? (granted, I've watched one too many celebrity slander/defamation charge that didn't look all that complicated.)





>
> I just don't see the US system allowing this to
> amount to much. Fringe religion says bad things
> about minority groups? Not exactly uncommon, but
> probably uncommonly resulting in legal or civil
> actions of consequence.
>


I would side with you on that if I wasn't very aware of how Government (Canadian at least) tries to look at First Nations rights on-going. It may be an opportunity for North American government to take the heat off their on-going reparation issues by allowing another group to get the spot-light of injustice for a change. Again, never underestimate the tenacity of the Canadian and American Aboriginal people.
It's one thing to say bad things about people, it's another thing to hinge your entire belief system around those tenants and call them true.





> I almost wonder if it would help the church to be
> given more reason to disavow yet another nutty,
> easily-disproven teaching though. (Not that I
> think harming the church makes it worthwhile for
> their racist beliefs to be out there harming
> indigenous peoples.)
>


It's impossible to disavow isn't it?
They'd have to completely re-write the book of Mormon, which is the most true and correct book on the earth. lol. Then they'd have no book. (did you sleep through the endless boring lamanite/nephite battles in the book of mo?) lol
That's not just disavowing a nutty belief, that a complete religion slammer. If they don't have the b of mo, they don't have a church. Remember? As a missionary you taught that the prospective convert must pray to get a testimony of the truth of the book of mo. If the book of Mo is true, then the prophet Joseph Smith is a true prophet, and the mormon church is true.
... nope, the whole house of cards is sadly for them hinged around the bom and Smith as a prophet. Why else do the G.A.'s never address the issues full on? The Cook talk today is an example of just that. They have nothing without the bom, and if it's a lie then thier a lie. That's why these geezers don't come out of the woodwork to confront the hard questions.


> I'd be interested to see if something *did*
> happen, though, or to hear an actual legal
> opinion.


I would be interested too.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2012 11:33PM by dec.

Genealogical DNA testing would prove this false very quickly. One of the companies is dedicated to diaspora populations (like the jews) and native americans (not linking them, that's just the populations they mostly focus on). If there was a significant overlap in the sequences, the company would have released something to the press, that would be groundbreaking and a boon for the company selling the kits. I wish I could remember the name of the company because you could probably just write and ask them if there is any such overlap, you'll get a "no" and then chalk it up to yet another way that science thwarts church mythology.