https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3764-0995
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This intervention paper, based on the Kaupapa Māori writing inquiry, aims to offer an alternative path forward to the idea that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should apologise for its racism. It argues that an apology is redundant to the Indigenous World. The goal is for better Church-Indigenous relations in the face of racism rooted in The Book of Mormon, Church Policy, doctrine, teachings, and theology. The author develops a positionality and outlines mahi tuhituhi as a Kaupapa Māori (post) qualitative writing inquiry. The Author then moves to contextualise these issues by framing them with what sociologists describe as Zombie Concepts. A brief overview of the Book of Mormon and its significance in Mormonism is provided. Following that, an understanding of the connection between Aileen Moreton-Robinson's white possessive and Lamanitism is provided. Hagoth and his relationship with Tāngata Moana (Māori and Pacific Peoples) is then addressed. Recent remarks by Thomas Murphy to help readers understand the racism in the Book of Mormon. Other issues for Indigenous Peoples are highlighted, with an emphasis on anachronisms and the Book of Mormon's plagiarism. The investigation then shifts to provide Veracini's commentary on settling to build relationality is discussed from the viewpoint of Aotearoa New Zealand. A discussion of the issues is followed by an outline of the research's consequences, which include seven issues that need to be addressed as part of the relationality building in order to create a collaborative future values-based project to move Church-Indigenous relations forward in a positive way.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank A/Prof. Byron Rangiwai, Prof. Thomas Murphy, Dr. Daniel Hernandez, Dr. Ngāropi Cameron, Sarah Newcomb, Brenton Griffin and the editor of the journal. Thanks also to the two anonymous reviewers of the article. Much appreciated, Ngā mihi.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Correction Statement
This article was originally published with errors, which have now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00664677.2023.2271239)
Notes
1 For more information on Zombie Concepts see Liotta and Shearer (Citation2008); Brabazon (Citation2016).
2 Tāngata Moana is an emerging identity descriptor for peoples of the Moana-nui-a-Kiwa (Pacific Ocean). Tāngata Moana seeks to (1) acknowledge that the traditional labels in common usage like Pasifika are used in settler/invader colonial settings to devide those that belong in the Moana particularly between those with mana originally from the land the Pacific arrivant communities are settled on. For example, Māori and Aotearoa New Zealand when using Pasifika this is a settler/invader colonial attempt to devide and ignore traditional whakapapa links (2) It helps define who belongs in the Moana and who holds mana within their own islands (3) It recognises a need for peoples of the Moana to dismantle structures of oppression created by imperialism and settler/invader colonialism across the Moana (4) recognise the need for a more inclusive identity descriptor across the board.
3 This article intends to initiate a global Mormon Studies international dialogue and discussion regarding apology for the racism of the Mormon Church and moving towards a collective post-racist future with the Indigenous world. By detailing this methodology and research theory, as is typical in research outputs. In addition, the approach to the research is novel in that a (post)qualitative inquiry is being conducted. It is essential to give a foundational understanding and growth of Kaupapa Māori Writing Inquiry. Mahi Tuhituhi is utilised as Kaupapa Māori Writing Inquiry because the method permits the author to reflect on and criticise settler/invader colonially-imposed power structures. The author recognises that this is not a research method per se, but rather an approach to qualitative posthuman research.
4 For more information on Kaupapa Māori Research and its approaches, refer to Pihama (Citation2010); Henry and Pene (Citation2001); Smith (Citation2015); Cram and Adcock (Citation2022). For a more detailed application of Kaupapa Māori research in Mormon and Lamanite Studies, see Simon, "Hoea Te Waka ki Uta’.
5 (Post)qualitative inquiry is methodological, but without methods, as a critique of predescribed qualitative methods is at the core in post-qualitative inquiry. For an understanding of the author's use of ‘(post)qualitative’ see Le Grange (Citation2018); Østern et al. (Citation2021); Ulmer (Citation2018; Citation2017).
6 For more information on Kaupapa Māori principle and theory, see Smith (Citation2003); Linda Smith, Kaupapa Māori research-some kaupapa Māori principles. In Leonie Pihama & Kim Southey (Eds.), Kaupapa Rangahau A Reader: A collection of readings from the Kaupapa Māori Research Workshop Series. University of Waikato & Te Kōtahi Research Institute; Simon, "Hoea Te Waka ki Uta’.
7 Mokopuna = Grandchild, Tupuna = Ancestor He mokopuna he tupuna = A grandchild [is] an ancestor. See Cameron et al. (Citation2013).
8 Cameron, et al., ‘He Mokopuna He Tupuna’. Tu Tamawahine o Taranaki,’ 4.
9 A grandchild is very precious, a fountain for ancestral knowledge and an everlasting reflection of those who have gone before. We are all grandchildren as are our ancestors. Daniels (Citation2007).
10 For more information on the workings of tika and pono in Kaupapa Māori Research around Mormon and Lamanite Studies, see Simon, ‘Hoea Te Waka ki Uta’.
11 Those in a position of power.
12 For a significant discussion on Mormon Ontology, see Altayeva et al. (Citation2020).
13 For discussion on God's interactions with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, see Sorenson (Citation1992); Sperry (Citation1995); Hickman (Citation2014); Murphy (2003a).
14 For an understanding of patriarchal white salvation, see Simon, ‘Mormonism and the white possessive’. Additionally for a discussion about patriarchal white salvation, see Moreton-Robinson (Citation2015).
15 The Author acknowledges that Hagoth is considered a Book of Mormon character that is Nephite. For a faithful Māori perspective Robert Joseph, in this panel discussion, stated that the modern Māori faithful position considers that because Hagoth was Nephite Māori, by implication, were not Lamanites, per se. This position in conflict was the historical teachings of the Church around Polynesians and Lamanitism. It would be advisable for some faithful Māori or Pasifika scholar to explore this phenomenon and its many contradictions and potential implications. Refer Murphy et al. (2022). Such assertions by Joseph further highlights what Ignacio Garcia terms, ‘The faultlines with Lamanite Identity." Refer to Ignacio Garcia, ‘My Search for a Lamanite Identity.'’ The Author also points out regardless of the people grouping that Hagoth comes from, as asserted by Joseph, either group from a Kaupapa Māori or non-Mormon perspective is still an appropriation of Indigenous identity (e.g Ngāti Hine to Nephite or Lamanite). The Author also notes that within Māori Mormonism there is a lot of folklore this too is also an area that requires research attention.
16 For an understanding of the settler/invader myth surrounding the Moriori people, refer to King (Citation2017).
17 The main research outcome and source of this phrase within Murphy's work is from his 2005 journal article. See Murphy, Thomas W. "Sin, Skin, and Seed,’ 36-51. Also see Mormon Stories, ‘Is the Book of Mormon Racist?—Dr. Thomas Murphy Pt. 2,’ Episode 1646, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKlaMAwH8zU.
18 Murphy's Mormon Stories interview features a discussion of his 2005 journal article, ‘Sin, Skin, and Seed: Mistakes of men in The Book of Mormon’.
19 The Author notes that this is a key feature of settler/invader colonialism to disavowel the act and adopt the a position know as a ‘move to innocence’. See Tuck and Yang (Citation2012).
20 For a broad history of the Tanner's engagement with Mormon culture and history, refer to Huggins (Citation2022); also see Runnells, ‘CES Letter’ (2017), https://read.cesletter.org/
21 Also refer to this commentary on his research: ‘Mormonism LIVE: 072: Neophytes & Lamanites In the Book of Mormon,’ https://youtu.be/phBJt09n9A0. Unofficial apologists claim victories in some of these items, but closer inspection reveals significant problems. It has been documented that apologists have manipulated wording so that steel is not steel, sheep become never-domesticated bighorn sheep, horses become tapirs, and so forth see Jeremy Runnells, ‘CES Letter,’ 11.
22 To understand the notion and potential political direction of Aotearoa New Zealand and how this could influence society and the Church more broadly, see Matike Mai Aotrearoa (Citation2016).
23 For further explanation of the term ‘Constitutional Transformation’ in relation to the political future of Aotearoa New Zealand refer to Matike Mai Aotearoa
24 For more on the relationship of sub-humanism in relation to Mormonism from a critical Indigenous Studies perspective see Simon, ‘Mormonism and The White Possessive.’
25 One potential model that maybe useful to explore is that of Raven Indigenous Capital Partners. See: https://ravencapitalpartners.ca/
26 The Author makes the point here with the term ‘outdated doctrine’ that it is common for The LDS Church to not engage in a previous endorsed practice. For example, in the context of this essay the idea of a Lamanite has effectively proven to never existed. The Church, in modern time has moved to not teach Lamanite skin curse but will not disavowel the cause being the racism in The BOM and by doing so reframing BOM as a source of spirituality not fact.