© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Not directly related to THIS book, but related to Maori Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint Culture.
I am amazed at how well the Maori and new Youth goals line up–
Tupuria King:
Te Whare Tapa Wha is supported by four main walls; taha tinana (physical health), taha wairua (spiritual health), taha whanau (family health) and taha hinengaro (mental health).
Physical, Spiritual, Family / Social, Mental / Intellectual
Info. from:
https://www.facebook.com/tupuriaking/photos/a.236257363372304/985391281792238/?type=3&theater
Comment cont.
LM: I agree, except that they read Alma 63:5-8 correctly as making them, at least in part, the remote ancestors of Nephites.
RW: Correctly? No. It’s an assumption and theory. Let’s hope it’s never disproved because you will be on a sandy foundation. There is no need to teach this to strengthen and retain members – and its reference should always be referenced as a theory, not conflated as a fact. An those that challenge the theory are not trashing Maori Culture – ask any Maori who is not LDS.
LM: This is correct; since the Book of Mormon is addressed to the remnant of the Lamanites. The name Lamanite derives from one of Lehi’s son.
RW: Agree.
LM: I agree with what RW quotes above.
RW: Newton is therefore not some rouge LDS writer that is blinded by DNA studies of former LDS and antagonist’s but following a culture use of the term.
LM: I believe, just as Maori Latter-day Saints, if they think about this, also see Elder Kimball as being mistaken on this detail.
RW: Noted. Again the point here was really to emphasise that Newton is not alone with her usage.
LM: I did not say that there was what RW (and Marjorie Newton) call an “official position” on this matter–that is, I did not falsely claim or “purport” that there was.
RW: Agree, I see it ‘implied’ in your writing.
LM: All these and many more are possible.
RW: Agree.
LM: There is no canonized scripture that settles the matter. What is “known and unknown” is a matter of conjecture, since there is no official statement on the matter.
RW: Agree, and therefore placing such emphasis on a teaching is unnecessary and this is in my view what Newton was trying to discuss. The potential for ‘shaken faith syndrome’ increases when theories such as these get too much air time – which this one has for decades.
LM: Why “is it likely [that] many of them [Apostles and Prophets” were just picking up some of the often wild speculation of missionaries on this matter? What is the evidence that this is “likely”?
RW: Appeal to authority – fail. We have prophets and apostles that do not ascribe to the Hagoth theory as factual. Poetic terminology, and a correct understanding of what a Lamanite can be, justifies a loose using of the term only. This comment had an element of tongue-in-cheek to your previous post re Newton picking up her views from others.
LM: Not true. It was Elder Bruce McConkie who wrote the head notes for the version of the Book of Mormon thought that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This statement was placed in that “unofficial” and “uncononised” headnote in my lifetime. And hence not when Apostles and Prophets first indicated that they believed that the Maori and other Pacific Islanders were Children of Lehi. President Heber J. Grant, in the dedicatory prayer to the first LDS Temple in Hawaii in 1919, which is well over fifty years before Elder McConkie fashioned those headnotes for an edition of the Book of Mormon.
RW: It is true. You misread the comment or I wasn’t clear. I said it was during the same period (but of course not the only period when the Hagoth belief was held) that the introduction made that claim. Again, the ‘principal ancestors’ to me is in the same boat as Hagoth – unnecessary and potentially will require a revisiting and correction in the future.
LM(RW): “Polynesians may have been of Nephite descent, but then by definition they became Lamanites through an apostasy that must have occurred.
LM: Whose definition? As I pointed out in my essay, the Maori I knew in 1950-52, who applied the prophetic warnings in the Book of Mormon to themselves, would say that they sometimes acted like Lamanites, as did “naughty missionaries.”
RW: The book of Mormon definition. During apostasy a Nephite could become a Lamanite, as according to the Hagoth theory the Polynesians would have. You anecdotal evidence is nice, yet those that you knew, where did they get the idea from that they were from Hagoth?
LM: Of course! That is what Moroni experienced. But his experience would not have precluded a parties of Nephites sailing away into the west sea from the narrow neck in about 60BC.
RW: Agree, however he knew of them and made no remark. It’s just an observation of whats in (or not in) the text. And worth noting your ‘west sea’, being the Pacific Ocean, is also an assumption.
LM: True and false. Mormon was the redactor of what we have in the Book of Mormon. Moroni may not have been familiar with Hagoth. We should not merely assume that he did in an effort to flatly deny that the Maori, as I also believe, could be the descendants of the Nephite mariners mention in Alma 63:5-8. RW has already granted that this is a possibility.
RW: Agree – I was simply noting what the text does and doesn’t say. Again, anything is possible, but I like to stick to things that have been given and teach those as faith builders, not theories such as Hagoth, however nice…
continued from earlier response to RW…
RW: “Newton was not incorrect to refer to the Polynesians as Lamanites, despite Hagoth being among Nephites. She was not confused over Hagoth and did not incorrectly claim Lamanite descent. To claim such is bunk.
LM: Would it not be incorrect if I were to refer to RW as a Kiwi, despite the fact that he is actually an Aussie? One could do this my simply saying that this is true “by definition”? This would only make sense if Kiwi always was understood as Aussie in ordinary discourse, which is obviously not the case, and it would also be a strange way of trying to find what is true, would it not?
RW: “I wouldn’t get your knickers in a knot too much regarding the incorrect cultural beliefs that permeated Polynesian, and more broadly, Australian and the Pacific LDS culture. There are, and have been, many erroneous beliefs held among LDS since 1830 – and Hagoth is certainly one of them.
LM: This is merely a bald assertion that is not back by any evidence.
RW: “As for [Midgley’s] claim and insinuation of my opinions being ‘…a nasty bit of bigotry’ – I admit was caught off guard when I read that, almost nasty, comment. You have, like you did with Newton, put words into my mouth. My family had a good laugh at this part of your response, since I am married to a Cook Islander. Oops, there you go again. Don’t assume on a name.”
LM: and then RW added the following: “I specifically said ‘…members of the church in the Pacific Area…’ – that is not, just as your own personal bias has interpreted, solely Caucasian Australian Citizens. Reading someone’s remark and then applying your rose-coloured filter and extrapolating things that are not there seems to be a trend. I was referencing members across Australia, New Zealand and many Island Nations. Many Polynesian and islanders know there are tall tales that are part of the church and Polynesian culture.”
LM: Whatever RW thinks he knows about what “many Polynesian and islanders know” about their proclivity to tell what RW calls “tall tales,” does he believe that his opinion somehow justifies Marjorie Newton’s ignoring, rejecting and explained away the contents of the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative? I doubt that she wants or deserves this kind of defense of her Mormon and Maori. I have twice done a google search on name and cannot locate him. I know nothing about RW except that he is married to someone from the Cook Islands. Has he served as a missionary? If so, when and where? Where did he attend university? I am confident that he would not say to me, if we were having lunch, the things he has posted on comments to a Latter-day Saint academic journal. Take for example, the following: “If Pa wants to tell a story we know isn’t true, we let him, and then eat dinner.” Does he think that this sort of thing is evidence for his demeaning generalization about Polynesians? Does he imagine that this kind of remark is the proper way of defending Marjorie Newton’s ignoring, brushing aside and explaining away the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative? Does RW think that she was justified in doing that because his wife’s father tells “a story we know is not true,” and “we let him, and then eat dinner”?
RW: “Furthermore, You [Midgley] might be surprised to know that many “Australians” are also Polynesians. We don’t differentiate the way you have. There is no ignorance nor bigotry – at least not over here.
LM: My wife and I once enjoyed the hospitality of Tongan and Samoan Saints in Australia. We have visited Australia twice, and loved every minute of it. In addition, dozens of the returned missionaries who we served at the Lorne Street Institute in 1999-2000 had served in Australia, and they were all Maori, Samoan and Tongan.
Unless Ryan Watson indicates that he regrets his lack of civility, and personal attacks on me, and indicates that he has read those five essays on the faith of Maori Saints available on the Interpreter website, and also indicates exactly which of Marjorie Newton’s publications he has read, I will not respond to anything he post again, and I may insist that the moderator not post anything he submits.
On January 8, 2019 at 7:31 am, Louis Midgley provided a very detailed response to some of my comments. I hereby follow the same format in my response, removing my initial comment (which is available in the comments above) and replying to his replies.
Louis Midgley (LM) said:
LM: I agree, but not when one takes seriously the language in Alma 63:5-8, unless one is trying to somehow use Simon Southerton’s opinion that DNA evidence demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient history.
RW: I think you are conflating a Hagoth theory with my objection to your criticism on Newton that it was grossly incorrect of her to reference Polynesians as Lamanites, when clearly this has been a general practice across decades as highlighted in my previous posts. You keep bringing in Southerton’s DNA study – the general point I’m making is you assume this was the driver for her Lamanite reference despite the fact church culture has used this term repeatedly – and is the likely source of her usage. It is also incorrect to keep linking Newton to Southerton as though her views align with his, which they clearly do not.
LM: I agree. That is not a good reason for the Brethren not to “officially” denounce what Maori believe.
RW: I agree in part. I see no denouncing of Maori culture, but cultural belief does not dictate the views that the church and its members should ascribe to, especially when there is confusion over who promulgated this theory to present day – Maori’s or church missionaries and leaders. Let them believe what they believe, yet recognise (as you have) that this is a theory and members (including Maori’s) who don’t ascribe to this theory are not somehow trashing the Maori people and their culture.
LM: It was not an insinuation but a blunt assertion. RW provided no evidence that Maori (and other Pacific Islanders are any more prone to telling tall tales than are any other ethnic group. RW’s evidence is that his wife’s father–whom he calls “Pa”–regularly tells tall tales. To generalize from that to claiming that Maori and Pacific Islanders is absurd, and very offensive. Does RW think that there is a genetic disposition for Maori to fib, while “white” Australians are immune from doing so?
RW: I should have been clearer with this comment – there is nothing in it like you suggest. I’m speaking from my own experience of which I have a family that is part European and part Polynesian. Of course all peoples tell stories with embellishments, especially oral histories, yet the focus of this discussion is Maori truth claims perpetuated by members. I do not ascribe to the words you attribute to me that there is a genetic disposition to fib and find that comment desperate and poorly played. Again, what do you mean by “Australian’s” – are you referring to Australians that are not Polynesian?
LM: One can, of course, include Aboriginal peoples, Greeks, Asians and even sharks or birds living in Australia as Polynesians. This by “by definition” approach gets close to what is sometimes called a category mistake. What exactly would be the point of defining the word “Polynesia” in that way?
RW: Fancy footwork, but any other reader would understand my point and it’s a rather illogical comment you made once you went to animals. The point is, referencing your earlier remake, that there is no bigotry by Australian’s towards Polynesians (many Polynesians consider themselves Australians too – and yes, may other countries) and when I say ‘Pacific Area’ I mean the whole area and all people, not just Australia without the Polynesians as you assume.
LM: Well it is one of at least one other way of understanding Alma 63:5-8.
RW: Possibly, it’s still unsubstantiated and unnecessary, especially since you claim you have ‘known’ since you were 12. Do you mean know, believed, or hoped? As it has not been revealed or supported by scripture as the Brethren have said.
LM: I agree. And also find nothing noteworthy about the 6 September 1972 letter.
RW: We agree it’s not an official view.
LM: I also accept the common belief of Maori Saints that they are “Children of Lehi” through Nephite mariners mention in Alma 63:5-8. The reason I proposed that Marjorie Newton twice indicated that Alma 63:5-8 mentions only Nephites, and then dozens of times has the Maori believe they are somehow Lamanites. She wrongly believes that Simon Southerton has only demonstrated that Lamanites can only now be found in Mesoamerica, when he actually insists that DNA studies prove that there were never an Lehites anywhere.
RW: You will need to quote me Newton’s text to support this assertion – I don’t agree. Mesoamerica as a location is also a theory btw (yet a reasonably good, and perhaps, the leading one). Newton is not the only, or first, or last person to reference Maori as Lamanites (which they would have been by definition of Lamanite as used in the book of Mormon – it’s not always a genetic term as you know).
Cont….
LM: This is a strange comment. Where in my essay on Marjorie Newton’s Mormon and Maori challenged Maori oral traditions? I am not the one challenging Maori oral traditions. Last month I had an opportunity to meet and have a look at some very old marae on Mo’orea in the Society Islands, with Mark Eddowes, who is an archaeologist, and the expert on marae in French Polynesia, and the Cook Islands. He has used Addison Pratt’s diary to locate places to dig on Tubuai in the Australs, where Pratt became the first Latter-day Saint to teach the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in a foreign language. The Latter-day Saint community he gathered is still flourishing. (Eddowes has a contract from UNESCO to dig on Aitutaki in the Cook Islands. (He insists that it is the most beautiful atoll in the world.) Why, I wonder does not RW think he needs to remind me of Maori oral traditions, and the great distances they had to travel.
RW: I perhaps was not clear on this point. Any ancient story that describes people travelling on a boat could arguably be applied to the Polynesians if it were to fit appropriate time frames. The Hagoth ship / Canoe correlation is merely that.
LM: No one, including Maori Latter-day Saints, claims that the Maori sailed directly from Mesoamerica to New Zealand. Please notice that RW granted that it could have happened, but then makes a huge fuss about there being proof that if it did happen. I agree that there is no final proof on this matter.
RW: I wasn’t suggesting a direct trip. Note also Lehi’s likely wasn’t direct. Hagoths, we don’t know – they could have drowned as the BOM people assumed. If it’s a true theory, then obviously there were many voyages over a period of time. Newton is on the money with this point. It’s dangerous to build faith upon theories, and unnecessary.
LM: It is, of course, problematic and unnecessary for those who, for whatever reason simply do not want it to be true
RW: No, it’s also a problem when faith is built upon ideas that at a future point turn out to be incorrect. It’s not a required teaching to promote faith, and has been emphasised too much.
LM: Would it not be incorrect if I were to refer to RW as a Kiwi, despite the fact that he is actually an Aussie? One could do this my simply saying that this is true “by definition”? This would only make sense if Kiwi always was understood as Aussie in ordinary discourse, which is obviously not the case, and it would also be a strange way of trying to find what is true, would it not?
RW: Yes you would be incorrect. Unless I moved to New Zealand and become a New Zealand citizen, then I’m happy to be rightly called a Kiwi. But since I am an Australian citizen, like my cook Islander wife, you can call us Australians.
.
LM: Whatever RW thinks he knows about what “many Polynesian and islanders know” about their proclivity to tell what RW calls “tall tales,” does he believe that his opinion somehow justifies Marjorie Newton’s ignoring, rejecting and explained away the contents of the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative? I doubt that she wants or deserves this kind of defense of her Mormon and Maori. I have twice done a google search on name and cannot locate him. I know nothing about RW except that he is married to someone from the Cook Islands. Has he served as a missionary? If so, when and where? Where did he attend university? I am confident that he would not say to me, if we were having lunch, the things he has posted on comments to a Latter-day Saint academic journal. Take for example, the following: “If Pa wants to tell a story we know isn’t true, we let him, and then eat dinner.” Does he think that this sort of thing is evidence for his demeaning generalization about Polynesians? Does he imagine that this kind of remark is the proper way of defending Marjorie Newton’s ignoring, brushing aside and explaining away the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative? Does RW think that she was justified in doing that because his wife’s father tells “a story we know is not true,” and “we let him, and then eat dinner”?
RW: This charged comment is too much about me and not the issues we are discussing. I’m not sure how knowing about me via a google search adds to this issues of this debate. Don’t be triggered by my reference to my family experience and please stick to issues without putting words in my mouth or attributing motivations to me. Don’t assume I only think Polynesians say things that are not 100% true in their oral histories. Everyone does. But we are talking about Newtons work and your criticisms of her ‘agenda’ and Polynesian tradition. I suspect I love the Polynesian people at least as much as you do. I am part of a huge family, and many in my family have been surprised with your initial response to me. I prefer to keep to your critique on Newton and the Hagoth theory (which you initially called out to me in your first response). It’s not needed to maintain the faith. I accept so much of Polynesian culture and tradition, but my point is Hagoth is not something to build faith on. Newton identifies its influence over the years and the problems with attaching too closely to a theory.
LM: My wife and I once enjoyed the hospitality of Tongan and Samoan Saints in Australia. We have visited Australia twice, and loved every minute of it. In addition, dozens of the returned missionaries who we served at the Lorne Street Institute in 1999-2000 had served in Australia, and they were all Maori, Samoan and Tongan.
RW: Yes, they keep their cultural identity – my reference to this point I raised was in the context I used the term Pacific Area and Australian’s, and the way you seemed to misinterpret it.
LM: Unless Ryan Watson indicates that he regrets his lack of civility, and personal attacks on me, and indicates that he has read those five essays on the faith of Maori Saints available on the Interpreter website, and also indicates exactly which of Marjorie Newton’s publications he has read, I will not respond to anything he post again, and I may insist that the moderator not post anything he submits.
RW: I’m happy to leave the comment back and forth now for others to read. I apologise if I have come off with a lack of civility and for any personal attacks (?) – However, I don’t recall attributing ignorance or bigotry towards you, or asking you for more of your personal details online (for whatever reason that would add to the discussion).
I am happy for a moderator to adjust or restrict my comments if they are deemed inappropriate; however, this call seems much more like a …’effort to prevent a free and open conversation – don’t you think?
I am not personally attacking you. I made a brief comment initially on your post agreeing with the tone on Newtons work – and you responded with detail, and I have afforded you the dialogue.
I think we have both made our positions clear on this matter (at least the Hagoth theory and usage of the term Lamanite). I would enjoy reading a paper that discusses the Hagoth theory in more detail, linking with Maori (and other) traditions, recognising the (and I agree with you, incorrect) recent DNA claims, the absence of an official view of the church, etc – it potentially would be a fascinating read and perhaps someone like yourself would be most suited. Clearly one thing we know is the BOM people knew how to get around when they wanted to – by land or sea.
Thank you for the discussion – I enjoy having my views challenged and the opportunity to discuss issues that are close to me. I encourage all readers to read Midgley’s articles on this site and Newton’s work and draw their own conclusions.
Comment cont.
LM: I agree, except that they read Alma 63:5-8 correctly as making them, at least in part, the remote ancestors of Nephites.
RW: Correctly? No. It’s an assumption and theory. Let’s hope it’s never disproved because you will be on a sandy foundation. There is no need to teach this to strengthen and retain members – and its reference should always be referenced as a theory, not conflated as a fact. An those that challenge the theory are not trashing Maori Culture – ask any Maori who is not LDS.
LM: This is correct; since the Book of Mormon is addressed to the remnant of the Lamanites. The name Lamanite derives from one of Lehi’s son.
RW: Agree.
LM: I agree with what RW quotes above.
RW: Newton is therefore not some rouge LDS writer that is blinded by DNA studies of former LDS and antagonist’s but following a culture use of the term.
LM: I believe, just as Maori Latter-day Saints, if they think about this, also see Elder Kimball as being mistaken on this detail.
RW: Noted. Again the point here was really to emphasise that Newton is not alone with her usage.
LM: I did not say that there was what RW (and Marjorie Newton) call an “official position” on this matter–that is, I did not falsely claim or “purport” that there was.
RW: Agree, I see it ‘implied’ in your writing.
LM: All these and many more are possible.
RW: Agree.
LM: There is no canonized scripture that settles the matter. What is “known and unknown” is a matter of conjecture, since there is no official statement on the matter.
RW: Agree, and therefore placing such emphasis on a teaching is unnecessary and this is in my view what Newton was trying to discuss. The potential for ‘shaken faith syndrome’ increases when theories such as these get too much air time – which this one has for decades.
LM: Why “is it likely [that] many of them [Apostles and Prophets” were just picking up some of the often wild speculation of missionaries on this matter? What is the evidence that this is “likely”?
RW: Appeal to authority – fail. We have prophets and apostles that do not ascribe to the Hagoth theory as factual. Poetic terminology, and a correct understanding of what a Lamanite can be, justifies a loose using of the term only. This comment had an element of tongue-in-cheek to your previous post re Newton picking up her views from others.
LM: Not true. It was Elder Bruce McConkie who wrote the head notes for the version of the Book of Mormon thought that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This statement was placed in that “unofficial” and “uncononised” headnote in my lifetime. And hence not when Apostles and Prophets first indicated that they believed that the Maori and other Pacific Islanders were Children of Lehi. President Heber J. Grant, in the dedicatory prayer to the first LDS Temple in Hawaii in 1919, which is well over fifty years before Elder McConkie fashioned those headnotes for an edition of the Book of Mormon.
RW: It is true. You misread the comment or I wasn’t clear. I said it was during the same period (but of course not the only period when the Hagoth belief was held) that the introduction made that claim. Again, the ‘principal ancestors’ to me is in the same boat as Hagoth – unnecessary and potentially will require a revisiting and correction in the future.
RW: “Polynesians may have been of Nephite descent, but then by definition they became Lamanites through an apostasy that must have occurred.
LM: Whose definition? As I pointed out in my essay, the Maori I knew in 1950-52, who applied the prophetic warnings in the Book of Mormon to themselves, would say that they sometimes acted like Lamanites, as did “naughty missionaries.”
RW: The book of Mormon definition. During apostasy a Nephite could become a Lamanite, as according to the Hagoth theory the Polynesians would have. You anecdotal evidence is nice, yet those that you knew, where did they get the idea from that they were from Hagoth?
LM: Of course! That is what Moroni experienced. But his experience would not have precluded a parties of Nephites sailing away into the west sea from the narrow neck in about 60BC.
RW: Agree, however he knew of them and made no remark. It’s just an observation of whats in (or not in) the text. And worth noting your ‘west sea’, being the Pacific Ocean, is also an assumption.
LM: True and false. Mormon was the redactor of what we have in the Book of Mormon. Moroni may not have been familiar with Hagoth. We should not merely assume that he did in an effort to flatly deny that the Maori, as I also believe, could be the descendants of the Nephite mariners mention in Alma 63:5-8. RW has already granted that this is a possibility.
RW: Agree – I was simply noting what the text does and doesn’t say. Again, anything is possible, but I like to stick to things that have been given and teach those as faith builders, not theories such as Hagoth, however nice a…
Comment Cont….
LM: This is a strange comment. Where in my essay on Marjorie Newton’s Mormon and Maori challenged Maori oral traditions? I am not the one challenging Maori oral traditions. Last month I had an opportunity to meet and have a look at some very old marae on Mo’orea in the Society Islands, with Mark Eddowes, who is an archaeologist, and the expert on marae in French Polynesia, and the Cook Islands. He has used Addison Pratt’s diary to locate places to dig on Tubuai in the Australs, where Pratt became the first Latter-day Saint to teach the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in a foreign language. The Latter-day Saint community he gathered is still flourishing. (Eddowes has a contract from UNESCO to dig on Aitutaki in the Cook Islands. (He insists that it is the most beautiful atoll in the world.) Why, I wonder does not RW think he needs to remind me of Maori oral traditions, and the great distances they had to travel.
RW: I perhaps was not clear on this point. Any ancient story that describes people travelling on a boat could arguably be applied to the Polynesians if it were to fit appropriate time frames. The Hagoth ship / Canoe correlation is merely that.
LM: No one, including Maori Latter-day Saints, claims that the Maori sailed directly from Mesoamerica to New Zealand. Please notice that RW granted that it could have happened, but then makes a huge fuss about there being proof that if it did happen. I agree that there is no final proof on this matter.
RW: I wasn’t suggesting a direct trip. Note also Lehi’s likely wasn’t direct. Hagoths, we don’t know – they could have drowned as the BOM people assumed. If it’s a true theory, then obviously there were many voyages over a period of time. Newton is on the money with this point. It’s dangerous to build faith upon theories, and unnecessary.
LM: It is, of course, problematic and unnecessary for those who, for whatever reason simply do not want it to be true
RW: No, it’s also a problem when faith is built upon ideas that at a future point turn out to be incorrect. It’s not a required teaching to promote faith, and has been emphasised too much.
LM: Would it not be incorrect if I were to refer to RW as a Kiwi, despite the fact that he is actually an Aussie? One could do this my simply saying that this is true “by definition”? This would only make sense if Kiwi always was understood as Aussie in ordinary discourse, which is obviously not the case, and it would also be a strange way of trying to find what is true, would it not?
RW: Yes you would be incorrect. Unless I moved to New Zealand and become a New Zealand citizen, then I’m happy to be rightly called a Kiwi. But since I am an Australian citizen, like my cook Islander wife, you can call us Australians.
Comment cont…
LM: Whatever RW thinks he knows about what “many Polynesian and islanders know” about their proclivity to tell what RW calls “tall tales,” does he believe that his opinion somehow justifies Marjorie Newton’s ignoring, rejecting and explained away the contents of the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative? I doubt that she wants or deserves this kind of defense of her Mormon and Maori. I have twice done a google search on name and cannot locate him. I know nothing about RW except that he is married to someone from the Cook Islands. Has he served as a missionary? If so, when and where? Where did he attend university? I am confident that he would not say to me, if we were having lunch, the things he has posted on comments to a Latter-day Saint academic journal… [portion of text removed to meet the word count – refer to above comments for details]… Does RW think that she was justified in doing that because his wife’s father tells “a story we know is not true,” and “we let him, and then eat dinner”?
RW: This charged comment is too much about me and not the issues we are discussing. I’m not sure how knowing about me via a google search adds to this issues of this debate. Don’t be triggered by my reference to my family experience and please stick to issues without putting words in my mouth or attributing motivations to me. Don’t assume I only think Polynesians say things that are not 100% true in their oral histories. Everyone does. But we are talking about Newtons work and your criticisms of her ‘agenda’ and Polynesian tradition. I suspect I love the Polynesian people at least as much as you do. I am part of a huge family, and many in my family have been surprised with your initial response to me. I prefer to keep to your critique on Newton and the Hagoth theory (which you initially called out to me in your first response). Many Polynesians I know are losing grip on this theory, and thankfully they are doing just fine. It’s not needed to maintain the faith. I accept so much of Polynesian culture and tradition, but my point is Hagoth is not something to build faith on. Newton identifies its influence over the years and the problems with attaching too closely to a theory.
LM: My wife and I once enjoyed the hospitality of Tongan and Samoan Saints in Australia. We have visited Australia twice, and loved every minute of it. In addition, dozens of the returned missionaries who we served at the Lorne Street Institute in 1999-2000 had served in Australia, and they were all Maori, Samoan and Tongan.
RW: Yes, they keep their cultural identity – my reference to this point I raised was in the context I used the term Pacific Area and Australian’s, and the way you seemed to misinterpret it.
LM: Unless Ryan Watson indicates that he regrets his lack of civility, and personal attacks on me, and indicates that he has read those five essays on the faith of Maori Saints available on the Interpreter website, and also indicates exactly which of Marjorie Newton’s publications he has read, I will not respond to anything he post again, and I may insist that the moderator not post anything he submits.
RW: I’m happy to leave the comment back and forth now for others to read. I apologise if I have come off with a lack of civility and for any personal attacks (?) – However, I don’t recall attributing ignorance or bigotry towards you, or asking you for more of your personal details online (for whatever reason that would add to the discussion).
I am happy for a moderator to adjust or restrict my comments if they are deemed inappropriate; however, this call seems much more like a …’effort to prevent a free and open conversation – don’t you think?
I am not personally attacking you. I made a brief comment initially on your post agreeing with the tone on Newtons work – and you responded with detail, and I have afforded you the dialogue you requested.
I think we have both made our positions clear on this matter (at least the Hagoth theory and usage of the term Lamanite). I would enjoy reading a paper that discusses the Hagoth theory in more detail, linking with Maori (and other) traditions, recognising the (and I agree with you, incorrect) recent DNA claims, the absence of an official view of the church, etc – it potentially would be a fascinating read and perhaps someone like yourself would be most suited. Clearly one thing we know is the BOM people knew how to get around when they wanted to – by land or sea.
Thank you for the discussion – I enjoy having my views challenged and having the opportunity to discuss issues that are close to me. I encourage all readers to read Midgley’s articles on this site and Newtons work and draw their own conclusions.
continued from earlier response to RW…
RW: “Perhaps they,” that is, the Nephite mariners, “drowned, perhaps the[y] ventured further north in North America, perhaps they made their way to Japan.”
LM: All these and many more are possible.
RW: “It is unrevealed and unknown, despite the personal opinions expressed by various leaders of the church over time.”
LM: There is no canonized scripture that settles the matter. What is “known and unknown” is a matter of conjecture, since there is no official statement on the matter.
RW: “It is likely many of them were ‘following the lead’ of those missionaries (not church leaders) who seem to have made the initial and unsubstantiated connection of Hagoth to the Polynesian people.”
LM: Why “is it likely [that] many of them [Apostles and Prophets” were just picking up some of the often wild speculation of missionaries on this matter? What is the evidence that this is “likely”?
RW: “These views held by members, and leaders, of the church were during the same period many members and church leaders held the opinion that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
LM: Not true. It was Elder Bruce McConkie who wrote the head notes for the version of the Book of Mormon thought that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This statement was placed in that “unofficial” and “uncononised” headnote in my lifetime. And hence not when Apostles and Prophets first indicated that they believed that the Maori and other Pacific Islanders were Children of Lehi. President Heber J. Grant, in the dedicatory prayer to the first LDS Temple in Hawaii in 1919, which is well over fifty years before Elder McConkie fashioned those headnotes for an edition of the Book of Mormon.
RW: “Polynesians may have been of Nephite descent, but then by definition they became Lamanites through an apostasy that must have occurred.
LM: Whose definition? As I pointed out in my essay, the Maori I knew in 1950-52, who applied the prophetic warnings in the Book of Mormon to themselves, would say that they sometimes acted like Lamanites, as did “naughty missionaries.”
RW: “The Book of Mormon indicates that Nephites were destroyed…”
LM: Of course! That is what Moroni experienced. But his experience would not have precluded a parties of Nephites sailing away into the west sea from the narrow neck in about 60BC.
RW: “Moroni, who knew of Hagoth, does not seem to have any hope of a Nephite Branch surviving towards his death – his focus is towards only Lamanites.”
LM: True and false. Mormon was the redactor of what we have in the Book of Mormon. Moroni may not have been familiar with Hagoth. We should not merely assume that he did in an effort to flatly deny that the Maori, as I also believe, could be the descendants of the Nephite mariners mention in Alma 63:5-8. RW has already granted that this is a possibility.
RW: Midgley should note that the oral traditions of the Maori’s indicating they came from a great distance are plainly obvious – no matter where they came from, their ancestors would have had to travel great distances to get to the islands of the pacific and New Zealand.
LM: This is a strange comment. Where in my essay on Marjorie Newton’s Mormon and Maori challenged Maori oral traditions? I am not the one challenging Maori oral traditions. Last month I had an opportunity to meet and have a look at some very old marae on Mo’orea in the Society Islands, with Mark Eddowes, who is an archaeologist, and the expert on marae in French Polynesia, and the Cook Islands. He has used Addison Pratt’s diary to locate places to dig on Tubuai in the Australs, where Pratt became the first Latter-day Saint to teach the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in a foreign language. The Latter-day Saint community he gathered is still flourishing. (Eddowes has a contract from UNESCO to dig on Aitutaki in the Cook Islands. (He insists that it is the most beautiful atoll in the world.) Why, I wonder does not RW think he needs to remind me of Maori oral traditions, and the great distances they had to travel.
RW: Even if they did come from the Americas, there is no sure case that is was from one of Hagoth’s ships or the decedents of these people.
LM: No one, including Maori Latter-day Saints, claims that the Maori sailed directly from Mesoamerica to New Zealand. Please notice that RW granted that it could have happened, but then makes a huge fuss about there being proof that if it did happen. I agree that there is no final proof on this matter.
RW: “Teaching this theory is problematic and unnecessary.”
LM: It is, of course, problematic and unnecessary for those who, for whatever reason simply do not want it to be true
continued from earlier response to RW…
RW: I have clearly shown there is no officially accepted Hagoth position as Midgley purports.”
LM: I did not say that there was what RW (and Marjorie Newton) call an “official position” on this matter–that is, I did not falsely claim or “purport” that there was.
RW: “Perhaps they,” that is, the Nephite mariners, “drowned, perhaps the[y] ventured further north in North America, perhaps they made their way to Japan.”
LM: All these and many more are possible.
RW: “It is unrevealed and unknown, despite the personal opinions expressed by various leaders of the church over time.”
LM: There is no canonized scripture that settles the matter. What is “known and unknown” is a matter of conjecture, since there is no official statement on the matter.
RW: “It is likely many of them were ‘following the lead’ of those missionaries (not church leaders) who seem to have made the initial and unsubstantiated connection of Hagoth to the Polynesian people.”
LM: Why “is it likely [that] many of them [Apostles and Prophets” were just picking up some of the often wild speculation of missionaries on this matter? What is the evidence that this is “likely”?
RW: “These views held by members, and leaders, of the church were during the same period many members and church leaders held the opinion that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.”
LM: Not true. It was Elder Bruce McConkie who wrote the head notes for the version of the Book of Mormon thought that the Lamanites were the “principal ancestors of the American Indians.” This statement was placed in that “unofficial” and “uncononised” headnote in my lifetime. And hence not when Apostles and Prophets first indicated that they believed that the Maori and other Pacific Islanders were Children of Lehi. President Heber J. Grant, in the dedicatory prayer to the first LDS Temple in Hawaii in 1919, which is well over fifty years before Elder McConkie fashioned those headnotes for an edition of the Book of Mormon.
RW: “Polynesians may have been of Nephite descent, but then by definition they became Lamanites through an apostasy that must have occurred.
LM: Whose definition? As I pointed out in my essay, the Maori I knew in 1950-52, who applied the prophetic warnings in the Book of Mormon to themselves, would say that they sometimes acted like Lamanites, as did “naughty missionaries.”
RW: “The Book of Mormon indicates that Nephites were destroyed…”
LM: Of course! That is what Moroni experienced. But his experience would not have precluded a parties of Nephites sailing away into the west sea from the narrow neck in about 60BC.
RW: “Moroni, who knew of Hagoth, does not seem to have any hope of a Nephite Branch surviving towards his death – his focus is towards only Lamanites.”
LM: True and false. Mormon was the redactor of what we have in the Book of Mormon. Moroni may not have been familiar with Hagoth. We should not merely assume that he did in an effort to flatly deny that the Maori, as I also believe, could be the descendants of the Nephite mariners mention in Alma 63:5-8. RW has already granted that this is a possibility.
RW: Midgley should note that the oral traditions of the Maori’s indicating they came from a great distance are plainly obvious – no matter where they came from, their ancestors would have had to travel great distances to get to the islands of the pacific and New Zealand.
LM: This is a strange comment. Where in my essay on Marjorie Newton’s Mormon and Maori challenged Maori oral traditions? I am not the one challenging Maori oral traditions. Last month I had an opportunity to meet and have a look at some very old marae on Mo’orea in the Society Islands, with Mark Eddowes, who is an archaeologist, and the expert on marae in French Polynesia, and the Cook Islands. He has used Addison Pratt’s diary to locate places to dig on Tubuai in the Australs, where Pratt became the first Latter-day Saint to teach the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in a foreign language. The Latter-day Saint community he gathered is still flourishing. (Eddowes has a contract from UNESCO to dig on Aitutaki in the Cook Islands. (He insists that it is the most beautiful atoll in the world.) Why, I wonder does not RW think he needs to remind me of Maori oral traditions, and the great distances they had to travel.
RW: Even if they did come from the Americas, there is no sure case that is was from one of Hagoth’s ships or the decedents of these people.
LM: No one, including Maori Latter-day Saints, claims that the Maori sailed directly from Mesoamerica to New Zealand. Please notice that RW granted that it could have happened, but then makes a huge fuss about there being proof that if it did happen. I agree that there is no final proof on this matter.
RW: “Teaching this theory is problematic and unnecessary.”
LM: It is, of course, problematic and unnecessary for those who, for whatever reason…
On January 6, 2019 at 7:42PM, R Watson (hereafter RW) claimed that I “missed the mark again and failed in [my] reply to acknowledge or respond to the major focus of [his] response….” I will quote each of RW’s complaints, after which I will comment or respond following my own initials LM. (I adopt this convention merely to avoid having to type our full names over and over.)
RW: “1. Referencing Nephite ancestors as Lamanites has precedent and it is not necessarily an error of Newton’s work as he tried to highlight.”
LM: I agree, but not when one takes seriously the language in Alma 63:5-8, unless one is trying to somehow use Simon Southerton’s opinion that DNA evidence demonstrates that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient history.
RW: “2. The Church does not have an official position that Hagoth (and company) are the ancestors of the Polynesian people.”
LM: I agree. That is not a good reason for the Brethren not to “officially” denounce what Maori believe.
RW: “3. Rejection of [Midgley’s] insinuation that my previous comments exemplify Bigotry (which he understandably dodged responding to altogether)”
LM: It was not an insinuation but a blunt assertion. RW provided no evidence that Maori (and other Pacific Islanders are any more prone to telling tall tales than are any other ethnic group. RW’s evidence is that his wife’s father–whom he calls “Pa”–regularly tells tall tales. To generalize from that to claiming that Maori and Pacific Islanders is absurd, and very offensive. Does RW think that there is a genetic disposition for Maori to fib, while “white” Australians are immune from doing so?
RW: “4. “Recognising that Australians by definition includes Polynesians (and many other peoples).
LM: One can, of course, include Aboriginal peoples, Greeks, Asians and even sharks or birds living in Australia as Polynesians. This by “by definition” approach gets close to what is sometimes called a category mistake. What exactly would be the point of defining the word “Polynesia” in that way?
RW: “Polynesians being a decedent of Hagoth, as Midgley believes, is but one of multiple theories connected to Hagoth and those people that entered the ships.
LM: Well it is one of at least one other way of understanding Alma 63:5-8.
RW Doing “This is not official church teaching.”
LM: I agree. And also find nothing noteworthy about the 6 September 1972 letter.
DW: “This is perhaps something Midgley could have included in his paper to avoid perpetuating one Hagoth theory over another. I accept this Hagoth theory as possible (we just don’t know), but reject it as a teaching that should be perpetuated (emphasis supplied).
LM: I also accept the common belief of Maori Saints that they are “Children of Lehi” through Nephite mariners mention in Alma 63:5-8. The reason I proposed that Marjorie Newton twice indicated that Alma 63:5-8 mentions only Nephites, and then dozens of times has the Maori believe they are somehow Lamanites. She wrongly believes that Simon Southerton has only demonstrated that Lamanites can only now be found in Mesoamerica, when he actually insists that DNA studies prove that there were never an Lehites anywhere.
RW: “Its influence,” that is, the belief that they are the descendants of Lamanites, “was significant in church growth and conversion in the island countries as Newton rightly highlights.”
LM: I agree, except that they read Alma 63:5-8 correctly as making them, at least in part, the remote ancestors of Nephites.
RW: “There are countless examples of leaders of the church, Eg Spencer Kimball, referring to Lamanites as decedents of Lehi.
LM: This is correct; since the Book of Mormon is addressed to the remnant of the Lamanites. The name Lamanite derives from one of Lehi’s son.
RW: “In fact, Kimball specifically calls the members of the church (in a July 1971 article called Of Royal Blood) in the pacific as LAMANITES, consistent with Newton’s classification: ‘Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill.’”
LM: I agree with what RW quotes above.
RW: “If Newton is in error for referencing Polynesians as Lamanites (as decedents of Hagoth) then, according to Midgley, Spencer W Kimball is too.”
LM: I believe, just as Maori Latter-day Saints, if they think about this, also see Elder Kimball as being mistaken on this detail.
RW: I have clearly shown there is no officially accepted Hagoth position as Midgley purports.”
LM: I did not say that there was what RW (and Marjorie Newton) call an “official position” on this matter–that is, I did not falsely claim or “purport” that there…
comment continued….
I wouldn’t get your knickers in a knot too much regarding the incorrect cultural beliefs that permeated Polynesian, and more broadly, Australian and the Pacific LDS culture. There are, and have been, many erroneous beliefs held among LDS since 1830 – and Hagoth is certainly one of them.
As for your claim and insinuation of my opinions being “…a nasty bit of bigotry” – I admit was caught off guard when I read that, almost nasty, comment. You have, like you did with Newton, put words into my mouth. My family had a good laugh at this part of your response, since I am married to a Cook Islander. Oops, there you go again. Don’t assume on a name.
I specifically said “…members of the church in the Pacific Area…” – that is not, just as your own personal bias has interpreted, solely Caucasian Australian Citizens. Reading someone’s remark and then applying your rose-coloured filter and extrapolating things that are not there seems to be a trend. I was referencing members across Australia, New Zealand and many Island Nations. Many Polynesian and islanders know there are tall tales that are part of the church and Polynesian culture. This is 2018, not 1950. No one is angry about it, it’s recognised and accepted. If Pa wants to tell a story we know isn’t true, we let him, and then eat dinner.
Furthermore, you might be surprised to know that many “Australians” are also Polynesians. We don’t differentiate the way you have. There is no ignorance nor bigotry – at least not over here.
Mate, due to time constraints my reply is limited.
You wrote, to me, the following:
“With this in mind, I urge Ryan to read again my own debunking of Newton’s insistence that Maori believe (or have been taught) that they are at least partly the remote descendants of Lamanites, when the story of Hagoth in the Book of Mormon is about Nephites. This is just one of dozens of similar and related obvious mistakes.”
Firstly, it is very disingenuous to suggest that Polynesians did not believe (some still do today) that they were descendants of Hagoth. Further, to claim this was not a factor in some conversions, both to the waters of baptism and then as a hook to remain in the faith, is unfounded. I still have in my possession printed material that I was given as a missionary from a missionary from New Zealand that had a whole lesson about this correlation to Hagoth. I kept it for reference, but did not once believe it. I am surprised you are not aware of it. My own experience is that many Polynesians and other members of the church in the Asia Pacific did believe this (and some still do).
The fact that you can find a Wikipedia entry for Hagoth that discusses this very point demonstrates there certainly was and is among many Polynesians the belief that they descended from Hagoth. It is undeniable. This might be surprising for someone on the other side of the world to appreciate, but this is common knowledge for Australian/Pacific Island Members. I would note, however, that very few serious students of The Book of Mormon over here believe this is a correct teaching.
Whether Newton referenced the ancestry link as Nephite/Lamanite is really a minor point to carry on about. Obviously Hagoth was a Nephite (as you note, Newton demonstrates she knows this) yet knowing he was a Nephite gives no detail as to his actual lineage – he or his family line could have been a direct descendant of Laman and converted and ‘became a Nephite’, or he could be from another population all together that joined the Nephites. All in all, ancestry semantics and Newton’s use of the term as you like to highlight are a minor issue compared to the erroneous and widespread belief of Polynesians being an actual descent of Hagoth. This is the substance of her argument and you have side stepped to carelessly nit-pick. The fact you call this point out to me demonstrates how proud you are with this issue, yet it is petty at best and I don’t think you 1000 words on this topic were well spent.
Your focus on her apparent ‘Lamanite descent error’ reads a little desperate in trying to discredit her marvellous and detailed work in your online essay. I am surprised you are taking such a fundamental approach to the terminology use of Lamanite/Nephite when someone of your alleged experience as a LDS and academic should know better. Lamanite is a term that has also been used culturally to reference all Lehi’s descendants. Whether or not this is correct usage is beside the point – at some time it entered the LDS general membership vernacular.
For example, this is noted in the New Era 1975 by Ross T Christensen who notes that:
“The word [Lamanite] is also often used in two ways that are not justified by the Book of Mormon: (4) Descendants of all seven of the lineages as they exist at present—the entire posterity of Lehi, Ishmael, and Zoram (but the term Lamanite cannot cover all these, not in a racial sense at least); (5) All American Indians together.”
As such, perhaps you should also call out all papers ever written that have incorrectly referenced Native Americans as ‘Lamanites’, when clearly they came from multiple ethnic groups. Of course, the term Lamanite has many different meanings, and if Newton has used it in the sense that Christensen identifies was common (although as he notes, is note justified by the actual text of the Book of Mormon) they I don’t think it is as an impressive find in her work as you do (perhaps a useful clarification only). I think your reference to the recent DNA debate has some credibility in a possible influence on her use of the terminology, yet clearly the above article of 1975 highlighted this was common well before any DNA Studies. Either way, well done to point it out – but move on quickly and get back to the substantive issues, which you seem to ignore.
The fact is the many Polynesian did and do believe in the Hagoth connection – I’ve heard it many times on Fast Sundays, in lessons, as a missionary and in conversations. And guess what, they often refer to themselves as Lamanite and/or Nephite descendants. Shock horror! This doesn’t discredit all the other wonderful aspects and stories surrounding the growth of the church in Australia and New Zealand, yet to try to re-write history based on desktop research – it’s just not compelling.
Ryan Watson claims that “it is very disingenuous to assert that Polynesians did not believe (some still do today) that they were descendants of Hagoth.” I fully agree with this assertion; he is exactly right abut this. I want to add to his “disingenuous” the following words: flatly false, mendacious, dishonest, and duplicitous. Why? I have known since I was something like twelve years old that Maori Saints believe that they are in part the descendants of those Nephite mariners mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
What I have argued in my essay is that Marjorie Newton, in wrongly assuming that two violent critics of the Church of Jesus Christ, one of whom is Australian, and neither of whom are population geneticists, have not demonstrated that Maori and Pacific Islanders cannot possibly be Children of Lehi, and also that they have not shown that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text. Instead, I have demonstrated the Newton wrong in insisting that the Brethren ought to announce that the Maori and other Pacific Islanders have been talked into believing bunk by missionaries and the Brethren. To make this claim she has had to ignore the findings of competent Latter-day Saint scholars. In addition, Ryan Watson has not followed my argument. The fact that Ryan does not believe that it is even possible for Maori and Pacific Islanders to be Children of Lehi, is not an argument but merely a bald assertion.
Please note that Ryan eventually admits that my reference to the recent DNA debate, which Newton clearly misunderstands, actually has, as he puts it, some credibility in a possible influence” leading to her claim that Maori believe that the are Lamanites. He thinks I should have merely pointed out her confusion over this matter, and then “quickly” gotten back “to the substantive issues,” which he then claims I have ignored. It is also not clear exactly what he thinks these “substantive issues” are.
One substantive issue, from my perspective, is Newton’s confusion over the DNA debate, and also her claim that the Maori Saints have been tricked into believing that they are the Children of Lehi, and that the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ should admit that this is not possible, which is what both Ryan Watson and Marjorie Newton believe. Ryan Watson asserts that doing this “doesn’t discredit all the other wonderful aspects and stories surrounding the growth of the church in Australia and New Zealand….” One of these stories, which Newton strives to explain away or ignore, is the primary reason that beginning on Christmas Day in 1882, for the first times began to become Latter-day Saints because of divine special revelation to them. In Newton’s 2012 narrative history entitled Tiki and Temple she tells the series of remarkable stories rather well. But in her 2014 Mormon and Maori she ignores solid evidence that those stories are simply true, and brushes aside the evidence just as she did in her PhD thesis.
Earlier Ryan Watson indicated that he had “enjoyed reading some of Marjorie’s work.” So have I, as I explain in detail in my essay. I trust that he has at least glanced at the appendix to my essay, where I list the all her publication up to the date in which my essay was published. What I have demonstrated is that her 1998 PhD thesis, which she has explained was her objective work written for and with the assumptions of the secular religious studies community, is very seriously flawed, as is its 2014 published version, while her faith-affirming Tiki and Temple, which was addressed to faithful Latter-day Saints is really quite good.
Finally, I beg readers to read Ryan Watson’s last paragraph and try to make sense out of it. Who exactly is trying “to re-write history based on desktop research”? I have five or six times spent long periods in New Zealand. I have also lived in New Zealand Twice, each time for two years. I am not the one whose opinions rest only on what is merely “desktop research.”
Louis Midgley (since the apparent process here is to write ‘about’ the other person and not ‘to’ them) missed the mark again and failed in his reply to acknowledge or respond to the major focus of my response (posted in two parts), being:
1. Referencing Nephite ancestors as Lamanites has precedent and it is not necessarily an error of Newton’s work as he tried to highlight.
2. The Church does not have an official position that Hagoth (and company) are the ancestors of the Polynesian people.
3. Rejection of his insinuation that my previous comments exemplify Bigotry (which he understandably dodged responding to altogether)
4. Recognising that Australians by definition includes Polynesians (and many other peoples)
Polynesians being a decedent of Hagoth, as Midgley believes, is but one of multiple theories connected to Hagoth and those people that entered the ships. This is not official church teaching. Quoting a signed letter from the first presidency by Elder Tanner and Elder Romney:
“In your letter of September 6, 1972, you ask if the Polynesian people are Lamanites or Nephites. There has been much speculation about the origin of these people. We have, however, no scriptural evidence or revelation from the Lord that would tell us exactly where these people came from or their background.”
No scriptural evidence? I agree. Note this letter comes after the many prayers and talks by leaders of the church who used poetic language to describe Polynesian people as the “Children of Lehi”. There have been some that continued to draw the connection after this letter was penned, but there is still not an accepted view endorsed by the Church. This is perhaps something Midgley could have included in his paper to avoid perpetuating one Hagoth theory over another. I accept this Hagoth theory as possible (we just don’t know), but reject it as a teaching that should be perpetuated. Its influence was significant in church growth and conversion in the island countries as Newton rightly highlights.
There are countless examples of leaders of the church, Eg Spencer Kimball, referring to Lamanites as decedents of Lehi. In fact, Kimball specifically calls the members of the church (in a July 1971 article called Of Royal Blood) in the pacific as LAMANITES, consistent with Newton’s classification:
“Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill.’
If Newton is in error for referencing Polynesians as Lamanites (as decedents of Hagoth) then, according to Midgley, Spencer W Kimball is too.
I have clearly shown there is no officially accepted Hagoth position as Midgley purports. Perhaps they drowned, perhaps the ventured further north in North America, perhaps they made their way to Japan. It is unrevealed and unknown, despite the personal opinions expressed by various leaders of the church over time. It is likely many of them were ‘following the lead’ of those missionaries (not church leaders) who seem to have made the initial and unsubstantiated connection of Hagoth to the Polynesian people.
These views held by members, and leaders, of the church were during the same period many members and church leaders held the opinion that the Lamanites were the ‘principal ancestors of the American Indians.’ Again, the meaning of ‘Lamanite’ requires discussion beyond the scope of this reply. Polynesians may have been of Nephite descent, but then by definition they became Lamanites through an apostasy that must have occurred. The Book of Mormon indicates that Nephites were destroyed – Moroni, who knew of Hagoth, does not seem to have any hope of a Nephite Branch surviving towards his death – his focus is towards only Lamanites.
Midgley should note that the oral traditions of the Maori’s indicating they came from a great distance are plainly obvious – no matter where they came from, their ancestors would have had to travel great distances to get to the islands of the pacific and New Zealand. Even if they did come from the Americas, there is no sure case that is was from one of Hagoth’s ships or the decedents of these people. Teaching this theory is problematic and unnecessary.
Newton was not incorrect to refer to the Polynesians as Lamanites, despite Hagoth being among Nephites. She was not confused over Hagoth and did not incorrectly claim Lamanite descent. To claim such is bunk.
I enjoyed reading some of Marjorie’s work. I don’t think she would be bothered by this review, and hopefully this discussion leads to further research and understanding.
It is well known among members of the church in the Pacific Area that the phrase ‘don’t’ let the truth get in the way of a good story’ applies to Polynesian culture and folklore – and unfortunately this does at times undercut the reliability of great spiritual experiences, real or otherwise.
Real spiritual experiences are wonderful as they occur, and need not be frosted with unnecessarily glam. When exaggerated stories are analysed and found wanting, they more than undo any faith building that was initially intended by the embellishments.
This, I believe, was part of Newton’s message.
Newton clearly sees herself as a careful fact-checker; and hence dedicated to debunking myths and tall-tales. She has properly pointed out how some Missionaries have garbled and embellished stories that they only heard second hand. No one should object to efforts to get the stories straight. I insist upon this being done. Hence my review of Mormon and Maori, in which I have demonstrated that both her PhD thesis and its published version are larded with bunk.
With this in mind, I urge Ryan to read again my own debunking of Newton’s insistence that Maori believe (or have been taught) that they are at least partly the remote descendants of Lamanites, when the story of Hagoth in the Book of Mormon is about Nephites. This is just one of dozens of similar and related obvious mistakes.
I have seen exactly nothing to indicate that Marjorie Newton has an interest in engaging in a conversation with Maori or other Latter-day Saints scholars over her opinions about the faith of Maori Saints. Instead, she has avoided conversations with those who are informed on the Maori understanding of divine things. In addition, she has, as far as I can tell, only been to New Zealand once on a brief “field trip.”
If Ryan will focus on just one portion of my review essay–the section entitled “Trashing the Maori Latter-day Saint Historical Narrative” (pages 193-197)–he will see how Newton has sought to debunk what he calls “real” or “great spiritual experiences,” which include Maori Seers opening the door for our missionaries and their message. The first of these was the encounter of the Mission President, William Bromley (and his two older Pakeha companions) with Hare Teimana, who recognized them because he had encountered the Apostle Peter who had shown them to him. She does this by relying on a letter written by a kid who as just 11 at the time. That letter was written 75 years after the events on Christmas Day in 1882. Newton actually uses that letter to trump a very detailed contemporary diary and the later reminiscence of the two others present on that occasion. This is a monumental mistake on her part. And it seems to have been driven by the secular religious studies in which she was indoctrinated at the University of Sydney.
There are, or course, other authors who seek to debunk the faith of Maori Saints. And there are more than merely one way, as Ryan says, to “undercut the reliability of great spiritual experiences.” A very destructive way is by brushing them aside, and/or attempting to explain them away. I have demonstrated that Newton’s intention was from the beginning to debunk the faith of Maori Saints. My essay would have been very much longer if I had analyzed and exposed every instance of botched debunking in Mormon and Maori.
Finally, what Ryan thinks is “well known among members of the church in the Pacific Area”–that is, what some members of the Church of Jesus Christ in Australia happen to believe, for whatever reason, about “Polynesian culture and folklore” is not a sound way of defending Marjorie Newton’s effort to debunk or brush aside the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative. Why? The opinions of some Australians about Maori (and Pacific Islanders) is likely to be an indication of the own very unfortunate ignorance, as well as even perhaps a nasty bit of bigotry. I urge Ryan to explain his remark. And also which of Newton’s published items he had read.
I never fail to be uplifted after reading Elder Rudd’s personal accounts of his experiences with Elder Cowley among the Maoris. I know that he focused on the positive and glossed over the negative, but in this instance that is fine with me.
I feel edified and lifted and strengthened in my faith and that is a sweet reward in itself.
I would have loved to meet Elder Cowley, as you did. As it was, I always came away feeling better after being around Elder Rudd. These kinds of people just make you feel good by the choice spirit that radiates from them.
Kofford Books, in their effort to promote Marjorie Newton’s Mormon and Maori, have Gina Colvin describe it as “an exemplary scholarly work,” and “a beautifully crafted book,” and as “groundbreaking,” as well as a “substantial historical account.” I am confident that those kinds of remarks pleased both Marjorie, and her publisher. But the blunt truth is that those at Kofford must take much of the blame for any hurt that she may feel as a result of my review. Loyd Ericson and others at Kofford, could have solicited competent assessments and then required the necessary corrections and thereby salvaged at least some of the core of flawed 1998 PhD thesis. Richard Jensen and Ron Esplin at the Smith Institute managed to facilitated Newton’s fine faith-affirming Tiki and Temple by merely insisting on accuracy.
In addition, one must also keep in mind the host of Maori Latter-day Saints, whose faith in several ways is mocked and trampled in Mormon and Maori. My review was, among other things, an effort to give them a voice. Responding, especially to an older Australian woman Latter-day Saint, tends to violate the governing norms of Maori Saints. Given my own deep debt to Maori Latter-day Saints, that began sixty-eight years ago, I had just had to “let the other side be heard,” to follow a venerable old Latin legal maxim.
In writing this review, I prayerfully sought to set out the truth in such a way as to reduce as much as possible any hurt I might cause a fellow Saint, while also by striving to protect the faith, both now and in the future, of the community of faithful Maori Saints.
I am pleased to see this review of criticisms of Latter-day Saint work among the Maoris. I read most of this review, but have not read any of Newton’s books. It is always good when error is pointed out and replaced by truth.
I come from a perspective of loyalty to Elders Matthew Cowley and Glen L. Rudd, two great missionaries to the Maori people and other Polynesians. Elder Rudd spent much of his later life seeking to preserve the memory of Elder Cowley’s dealings with a people they both considered to have great faith, despite weaknesses.
Elder Rudd was aware that some criticized Elder Cowley (his mission president) for relating stories about faithful works and miracles among the Polynesians. In one document, describing the last days of Elder Cowley, Elder Rudd wrote:
He had had one severe critic who very unjustly said things about him. This had bothered me much more than him. On two or three occasions, I had asked permission to straighten this person out, but he never would allow that. However, on this last day that we were together for such a long time, he said, “When I’m gone, if you ever hear any more criticism from this individual, you go ahead and straighten it out.” Fortunately, I never heard any more and that problem just dissolved.
Elder Rudd further commented:
“President Cowley was a great storyteller. Everything that happened to him was interesting. He could take any little event and make it into a fine story. However, he never exaggerated. He just told excellent details about every wonderful thing that happened, and everything in his life was exciting”
Elder Rudd was sensitive to unjust criticisms leveled against his beloved leader and friend. The must aggravated I ever saw Elder Rudd get is when I gave him a copy of writings by Richard Poll that discounted Elder Cowley’s stories. He thought Poll’s conclusions foolish. Often, those without much faith of their own impose that limitation on others, and thereby insist others have not experienced what they haven’t.
Both Cowley and Rudd knew well the weaknesses and sins of all people, including Maoris, but they also knew of the fire of their faith and their ability to repent and improve and and also to work mighty miracles. The Holy Spirit witnessed the truth of Elder Cowley’s stories and that is all that is needed, despite what skeptics might say. I have heard a number of modern church leaders describe the power they felt when personally present at BYU to hear Elder Cowley give his “Miracles” talk.
Those who accuse Elder Cowley of smearing on the frosting like Elder Dunn did are mistaken.
Before he died, Elder Cowley received a great spiritual manifestation of some kind, in which it was made known to him when and how he would pass away and that it would be given to him to die as he chose. This is exactly how it happened. Then Elder Rudd died just 2 years ago, last of Elder Cowley’s missionaries.
Elder Cowley was a good friend of my father. He came to my own missionary farewell, and later he invited me to speak with him in the last session of the Bountiful Stake conference when I returned home. When I reported to my father that we were only averaging just over two hours a day doing missionary work. He showed my letter to Matt (as we lovingly called him), who was told to inform me that the Brethren understood what missionary work was then like among the Maori, and hence I should not be concerned about the summary made from what he called “lie sheets” because what were were doing was a blessing to us and those we taught and visited.
My own experience with the Saints in New Zealand has had a profound and lasting impact on me.
I was also disgusted by Richard Poll’s remarks.
I did not to Marjorie Newton’s claim that Elder Cowley exaggerated. If she had lived with the Saints in New Zealand she might have not been skeptical of even of the most solid accounts of the manifestations of the work of the Holy Spirit among the Saints in New Zealand.
“I am pleased to see this review of criticisms of Latter-day Saint work among the Maoris. I read most of this review, but have not read any of Newton’s books. It is always good when error is pointed out and replaced by truth.”
The above is quite a statement. I appreciate your ‘loyalty’ to Elder Cowley – certainly he is a great man (both on Earth and beyond).
However, this conversation is improved with informed participants, and the blind rejection of decades of work by a great researcher and LDS (Sister M Newton) without reading even a smidgen of her writing highlights the strong bias towards towing the party line that there is but one narrative of the Polynesian LDS – and it has been told by Brother Midgley.
I must now also respond to some of Ryan’s comments. I have not blindly rejected Marjorie Newton’s “decades of research… without reading even a smidgen of her writing. If Ryan will now look at pages 202-205, he will see an “Appendix” entitled “Marjorie Newton’s Writings.” I have assembled what is to this point an exhaustive list of all 28 of her publications. Her friend (and the copy editor of her two book on the faith of Maori Saints) graciously provided me with a copy of Marjorie Newton’s own CV. This made it possible for me to consult all of her publications, in which I include both her MA thesis and her PhD thesis, but not the 510 page unpublished book manuscript, which I had been asked by a potential publisher to review. Having this manuscript in my possession made it possible to track her effort to turn the first two chapters of her PhD thesis, which were a narrative sketch of the history of the Church of Jesus Christ in New Zealand into what eventually was published as Tiki and Temple in 2012.
I also was asked to review her entire PhD thesis for a potential publisher. They sent me a rough Xerox copy of her thesis. But I also had a look at the very beautiful copy of her thesis that is located at BYU-H through interlibrary loan. And also her 1986 MA thesis, a version of which was published in 1991. This is available in the Church Library in Salt Lake City.
I will admit that I am inclined to defend the Maori Latter-day Saint historical narrative. But I have no idea what constitutes what Ryan calls “the party line that there is but one LDS narrative of the Polynesian LDS.” The expert on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Pacific Islands is Lanny Britsch. No one else comes close to what he has written, and hence I do not claim to, as Ryan insists, that “it has been told by Brother Midgley.”
I am, of course, fully aware that there are competing accounts of the faith of Maori Saints. I have explained elsewhere that it must be faithful Maori who will tell the story of their own faith. It now seems clear that Ryan has either not read, or read my essay above with any care. Nor has he read any of the others available on the Interpreter website. There is always a certain entry price that must be paid to engage in a productive conversation. I would very much enjoy such a conversation.
Louis you have misread my comment. My comment was in response to Dennis Horne comment on November 30, 2018 at 10:27 am, which I quoted in my reply hoping that would be clear.
It is evident to me that you have actually read her work. I do not consider you at all an uninformed participant, especially as you wrote this paper. My remarks were all directed towards Dennis.
Regards,
I don’t want my casual reference to “Professor Joseph” to become an issue. It has been called to my attention that I should have indicated that Dr Robert Joseph is currently a “Senior Lecturer” in the Faculty of Law at Waikato University. One can get some idea of his publications by consulting his entry to “Mormon Scholars Testify,” which can be accessed at /www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/robert-joseph. This was posted in April 2010, and includes a list of his publications from 2000 through 2009.
Pingback: Marjorie Newton’s Account of the Faith of the Māori Saints: A Critical Appraisal - Louis C. Midgley - The Mormonist