Decolonizing Lamanite Studies—A Critical and Decolonial Indigenist Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent and much needed contribution to the field of Lamanite Studies. This critique of Garrett's overview of Lamanite Studies is a necessary correction to the field. The recommendations of the author at the end for the field are valuable, succinct, and highly relevant.

To improve the readability and relevance of the paper the author could cut most of the use of phrases like "I argue that," "I contend that," "in my work," "my critique," etc. In most cases these phrases are not needed and detract from the paper aesthetically. On a more important theoretical perspective these frequent phrases give the paper an I focused--the author vs. Garrett--narrative frame.

The paper would be much stronger if it shifted more to a we perspective. This could be done relatively easy by engaging more deeply with Elise Boxer's work (especially "The Book of Mormon as Mormon Settler Colonialism" that the author seems to have overlooked). Boxer's work appears to be the primary target of Garrett's criticism. The author's engagement with Gina Colvin could be a model for how to more deeply engage Boxer and shift the anaylsis from more of an individual to a collective framework. Beyond Boxer and Colvin it would be helpful to include, when appropriate as part of a collective framework, additional Indigenous scholars like Angelo Baca, P. Jane Hafen, Arcia Tecun, Moroni Bennally, and Sara Newcomb as well as some Latino scholars like Leticia Alvarado, Sujey Vega, and Cesar Ceriani Cernadas and some non-Indigenous scholars like Thomas Murphy, Erika Bsumek, and Jason Palmer. Addressing Baca's and Murphy's collaborations around repatriation and Book of Mormon historicity issues would significantly strengthen the author's arguments. The current I framing in the language of the article gives a false impression that the author is a singular voice in what is really a much larger field of discourse.  

Overall, this is a very valuable and much needed contribution to the literature. I enthusiastically support its publication with some minor revisions. See the attached file for some more specific suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer One:

In general I have done a close reading and have changed the manuscript accordingly moreso then what was required by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer Comment:

Author needs to address recent LDS statements/essays explicitly rejecting the ideology of curses. See the first paragraph under the section The Church Today at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the- priesthood?lang=eng. Why is this and similar statements insufficient?

 

Changed paragraph to:

My analysis positions Lamanite Studies within a comprehensive critique of the systemic racism present in the LDS Church and its function in upholding white patriarchal salvation as the normative framework for spiritual belonging. While the Church has issued Gospel Topics essays and official statements in recent years explicitly rejecting any doctrinal basis for dark skin as a divine curse (see “Race and the Priesthood,” LDS Church 2013; “Book of Mormon and Race,” LDS Church 2024), these repudiations remain superficial when considered alongside enduring ficto‑mythological connections between Māori and Book of Mormon figures such as Hagoth (see AuthorA 2024, n.d.). By reframing—but not dismantling—the racialized narratives of Mormon theology, the Church retains the authority to define Indigenous identity on its own terms. These narratives operate less as sincere theological revision than as strategic manifestations of white possessiveness: they continue to appropriate and subsume Indigenous whakapapa (genealogy), undermining the mana (power/authority) and tapu (sacred) embedded in Indigenous spiritual frameworks. In doing so, they buttress structures that privilege white Mormonism’s identity‑making while purposefully marginalizing Indigenous sovereignty and spirituality (AuthorA 2022b, 2024, n.d.).

Reviewer comment:

Can you cite some examples of the Mormon apologetics you're referencing here? Are you suggesting that Garrett is apologetic? Note, he would probably not see himself that way. Or do you have additional authors in mind?

 

Comment: I acknowledge that he is unlikely to agree with the idea that his work is apologetic but that largely down to viewpoint and positioning which mine is unapologetically indigenist. I am suggesting his work is apologetic.

 

Have added to paragraph; “From a Critical Indigenist and decolonial perspective, Garrett's rereading of Lamanite identity functions less as genuine critique and more as a form of apologetics — it cushions Mormonism's settler-colonial foundations by repackaging them in more palatable language, rather than destroying the underlying theological claims that enable spiritual dispersion and white possessiveness.”

 

Problem section:

This article presents a vision for Lamanite Studies that deconstructs colonial frameworks, enabling Indigenous identities to be defined by Indigenous perspectives, free from the limitations imposed by religious colonization.

 

Reviewer comment: Aren't "Lamanite" identities inherently colonial?

Rewrote paragraph to read:

This essay advocates the reclaiming of Indigenous identity outside—and in clear opposition—to the colonial construct of "Lamanite."  I contend that Indigenous peoples must declare and reassert their mana motuhake (Indigenous sovereignty) over their own cultural and spiritual narratives rather than trying to salvage an identity anchored in settler/invader colonial and racist theology.  This involves deconstructing the whole concept of "Lamanite" as a genuine category rather than allowing any LDS Church attempt to absorb Indigenous identity into a white patriarchal paradigm of redemption.  Decolonized Lamanite Studies, in my vision, completely demolish colonial structures and enable Indigenous people to define identity on their own terms, therefore restoring spiritual and cultural autonomy. This is particularly required for non-members of the Church and those who hold deep rooted identities based in the epistemology and ontologies of our respective cultures.

 

Reviewer comments:

Self-adoption of Lamanite identities among Catawba, Northwestern Shoshone, and Nahua Mormons preceded the mid-twentieth century. See Armand Mauss' All Abraham's Children and the doctoral dissertations of Stanley Thane and Thomas Murphy.

 

This chronological framing contradicts the previous paragraph's emphasis on mid- to-late twentieth century.

 

Rewrote paragraph to iron out this problem:

In "Disentangling Binaries and the Rise of Lamanite Studies," Matthew Garrett (2018) looks at the changing definition of "Lamanite" in respect to the LDS Church and Mormon Studies. Garrett comes from nineteenth-century Book of Mormon doctrine, which initially presents Indigenous people as descendants of a fallen lineage seeking atonement. Self-identification as Lamanite among groups including Catawba, Northwestern Shoshone, and Nahua Mormons, however, predates the mid-twentieth century and shows that Indigenous agency in claiming—or contesting—this identity existed well before more general institutional acceptance. Church officials increasingly actively advocated Lamanitism as part of their eschatological vision, so incorporating it into both institutional theology and Indigenous conversion experiences, as LDS missionary activities grew more intense throughout the Americas and Polynesia. Mid to late twentieth century. Though his chronology underplays the earlier, self-directed acquisition of Lamanite identity by Indigenous convert, Garrett (2018) notes this change demonstrates the junction of Mormon theological expansion and Indigenous activity.

 

Reviewer Comment: It would be helpful to cite Elise Boxer's essay on the Book of Mormon as Mormon Settler Colonialism here.

 

Done.

 

Reviewer comment: (insert) place

Done.

 

Reviewer Comment: This overestimation of emancipatory potential and underestimation of settler colonial foundations is key. Can you elaborate?

 

Added: Garrett elides how the very category arises in a theology predicated on Indigenous spiritual weakness and supports assimilation into white Mormon standards.  This focus on agency under the colonial framework hides the systemic violence inherent in determining Indigenous identity based on eschatological goals of a settler/invader religion.  Garrett's narrative essentially underplays how Lamanitism functions less as a vehicle of liberation than as a tool of spiritual colonisation — one that reorients Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty towards conforming with white patriarchal salvation rather than destroying the colonial relations that generate marginalisation in the first place.

 

Reviewer Comment: Please cite your own and Colvin's relevant work here.

Done

 

Reviewer Comment: The second sentence in this paragraph is incomplete, your thought is unclear. What about the critique is relevant?

 

Inserted: The critique of the Book of Mormon’s depiction of Indigenous people as Lamanites—that is, as a cursed and fallen group in need of salvation through assimilation into Mormon culture and teachings— reveals how this narrative functions as a tool of spiritual colonization rather than a benign theological metaphor

 

Reviewer Comment: The sentence on the priesthood ban could be moved to a footnote. Current footnote 3 is empty. Citations needed.

Done

 

Reviewer Comment: Would you say that it cannot rectify the harm without repudiating the historical claims of the Book of Mormon?

 

Added: However, it should be noted that the Church cannot rectify the harm without repudiating the historical claims of the Book of Mormon.

Reviewer Comment: Yes, you might also cite Murphy and Baca's "Rejecting Racism" article in Open Theology as support here. You might more clearly articulate what the essay says and why it is inadequate.

Reformatted and restructed to paragraph to reflect this.

 

Reviewer Comment: Margarito Bautista and George P. Lee could be examples here. Colvin was disfellowshipped rather than excommunicated.

Inserted and reformatted to:

Those who challenge the LDS Church’s racial beliefs or advocate for decolonization or indigenization are typically ostracized or excommunicated, historical example of this are George P. Lee and Margarito Bautista (Quinn 2018; Murphy 1999; Garcia 2020; Pulido, 2020). These actions by Church leadership perpetuate a culture of silence, insularity and conformity (AuthorA 2023).

 

Reviewer Comment: Critical Indigenous Studies

Changed section title

 

Edited to:

Although Garrett’s work seeks to address these complexities, his approach does not sufficiently engage with the settler/invader colonial and racialized foundations

 

Reviewer comment: How might Garrett "demolish" this racialized epistemology?

Sorry this was a typo have changed this.

 

Reviewer Comment: How would you fit Arcia Tecun's (2021) articulation of Samuel the Lamanite as a trope of divine rebellion here?

While this is an interesting academic argument, I am choosing to sideline it because it is a side issue that will be a distraction within the paper. I do acknowledge that his would be a very great book chapter.

 

Reviewer Comment: It might be helpful to contrast Garrett with the work of other non-Indigenous scholars like Palmer, Bsumek, Brooks, and Murphy who acknowledge the inherent limitations of their own positionalities.

 

Focusing on comparisons among non-Indigenous academics could unintentionally help to preserve the primacy of non-Indigenous points of view in the discipline. These academics show reflexivity, but they nonetheless function inside epistemological models that are fundamentally colonial. This analogy runs the danger of bolstering the validity of a conversation that ignores Indigenous epistemologies and voices. I also highlight these points below:

Decolonial work aims to recentre Indigenous knowledge and viewpoints, therefore diluting Indigenous Authority. Comparatively pitting non-Indigenous academics against one another runs the risk of sustaining a conversation that favours the self-criticism of settlers over the work of Indigenous people. In debates concerning Mormon Studies, this can weaken the power and prominence of Indigenous epistemologies.

Strengthening Settler Legitimacy: Even reflexive non-Indigenous academics sometimes operate inside the accepted academic systems that have historically excluded Indigenous viewpoints. Emphasising their attempts to recognise constraints could unintentionally support the ongoing predominance of these systems rather than fundamentally opposing them. It runs the danger of supporting the story that changing non-Indigenous research is the answer instead of drastically substituting or overhauling it using Indigenous frameworks.

Comparing and contrasting non-Indigenous scholarship can occasionally be co-opted by mainstream academic discourse to imply that self-reflexivity is adequate to overcome colonial legacies. More transforming decolonial techniques, which demand a more drastic departure from conventional epistemologies and the authority systems supporting them, might be undermined by this.

 

In short, while it is important to critically examine and hold accountable all scholarship—including that of non-Indigenous scholars—the focus for decolonial work should remain on empowering Indigenous voices, methodologies, and self-determination. The aim is not merely to contrast different non-Indigenous positions, but to challenge the overall framework that positions Indigenous identity and epistemology as secondary.

 

Reviewer Comment: Can you provide some examples of non-Indigenous scholars who are doing more responsible and collaborative work?

Not sure what this would add so I have chosen to not do this.

 

Reviewer comment: Unclear

Added footnote to explain.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

The work of decolonizing academia, education, and general knowledge or Pyro-epistemology, is the work of Indigenous scholars, people, and communities. It is Indigenous voices emanating from a lived experiences of the ongoing negative impacts of colonization, erasure, and dehumanization of Indigenous communities that will create positive change in many areas. This article is a valuable addition to critical Indigenous studies, religious studies, and decolonization. The main focus and questions on page 4, questions 1-6, were addressed and answered.

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
  
  

The article adds a decolonized and Indigenized,  well supported critical discussion to address Eurocentric discussions that work to deny and erase Indigenous bodies, knowledge and humanity in the subject area.

 

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

The methodology,  critical Indigenous (truth-telling) from an Indigenous perspective,  is clear and well-supported.

 

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

The discussion regarding ongoing colonization within Lamanite Studies and the LDS church supports the conclusions of the continuing and critical need to decolonize the study area.

The topic, addressing ongoing and damaging colonial narratives that impact Indigenous people within the LDS and public community, is original and relevant to the field and to a broad area of academic studies, education, and critical Indigenous studies. The article is a strong and highly appropriate addition to a growing body of Indigenous critical thought, working to decolonize academia and make the world a better place for all people.

 

• Are the references appropriate?

The references cite well-respected critical Indigenous and settler scholars within the study area and are thorough and appropriate.

The article adds an Indigenous view (first hand) insider view to the research subject area.

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer Two raises no concerns to be addressed