Book of Mormon Questions #7 (Characterization)

 To see the context for this and other questions in this series, please see the introduction, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Zoram—Na‘ar or Stock Character?

A year or two before I retired from BYU Studies, we considered an article that I argued against publishing (“Rediscovering Zoram: The Chief Na‘ar of the Commander of the Fortress”). I felt it fell under the category of apologetics that read way too much into the Book of Mormon account. Eventually, after some (but in my mind not enough) revision, we did publish the article. The main premise of the article, in a nutshell, was that Laban was the commander of the fortress in Jerusalem, and Zoram was his chief na‘ar, or right-hand man. Because of this assumption, the author also assumes that the brass plates that Laban had in the fortress’s treasury actually belonged to the king (even though the text says that Laban had the plates because he was a descendant of Joseph, as was Lehi). Zoram, being the commander’s right-hand man not only had the keys to the treasury but was also an experienced soldier and trusted advisor to Laban who would likely have been present when Nephi and his brothers came asking for the plates.

When I say nutshell, I mean it. This article is 38 pages long and goes into great depth in making the case for both Laban as commander of the fortress and Zoram as his na‘ar. Some of it seems reasonable, but the overall assumptions in the article just feel too far-fetched, based on what we are actually told about both Laban and Zoram.

Laban was obviously some kind of important man in Jerusalem. The only indications we have in the text that Laban was a military leader, however, are Laman’s complaint that Laban “is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?” (1 Ne. 3:21) and the fact that when Nephi found him unconscious from too much wine, Laban was wearing armor and had a sword (1 Ne. 4:9, 19). There is no mention of a fortress. In fact, when Laman goes alone to ask for the plates and then when all four brothers go to barter for them, they go to Laban’s “house.” And when Laban covets their possessions and tries to have the brothers killed, he sends “servants,” not soldiers. This may be nitpicking, but even after Nephi has chopped off Laban’s head and has donned his clothing and armor, he goes straight to Laban’s treasury (not the king’s). I’ve always wondered how Nephi could chop off Laban’s head and take his clothing off without getting any blood on the attire, but that’s a mystery for another day. Significantly, there is no mention of Nephi having to gain access to a fortress, where guards would certainly be posted. Of course, maybe Nephi (apparently with the Lord’s help) can pass himself off as Laban, but that isn’t mentioned. In the account, he meets only the servant who has the keys to the treasury. And Zoram is perfectly fooled and willing to accompany Nephi out of the city with the brass plates.

Here’s where my major problems with the article begin. If Zoram really is the commander’s chief na‘ar and is an accomplished soldier, he certainly wouldn’t leave the city at night without his sword. And when it becomes apparent that Nephi is not Laban but is instead a large teenager who has stolen Laban’s clothing, armor, and sword, wouldn’t he put up a fight for the plates? Yes, he’s outnumbered once the three brothers show up, but if he’s the na‘ar, he would not be so easily cowed. But Young Nephi is able to put him in a half-nelson and extract a promise from him that he will accompany them as a free man into the wilderness. The assumption here, I suppose, is that Zoram is likely not a free man already, which, by the way, a chief na‘ar would be.

The story here just seems too convenient for me. Zoram doesn’t put up any sort of fight, which suggests he’s probably more a clerk than a soldier. He also apparently has no family in the city who will miss him. Certainly no wife and children. A little later, he marries the oldest daughter of Ishmael, which suggests that he is older than Laman. And yet he is endlessly devoted to Nephi, who is likely a teenager when he extracts the oath from the older Zoram. When Lehi blesses all his children and grandchildren in the promised land before he dies, he also blesses Zoram and tells him he is “a true friend unto my son, Nephi, forever” (2 Ne. 1:30). Zoram also goes with Nephi when the family splits after Lehi’s death. But if Zoram were some sort of accomplished soldier, why does he not come to Nephi’s aid when his brothers tie him up and otherwise mistreat him? No, Zoram just disappears during these fraternal conflicts. He’s sort of a shrinking violet. In fact, the odd convenience of this whole account makes Zoram seem more like a stock character than a real person. He’s certainly a conundrum, which is probably why this particular author goes to such great and creative lengths to try to account for who he is—and goes well beyond the evidence in the book to make Zoram into some sort of larger-than-life soldier/hero type.

The article points out that Zoram’s descendants are apparently a militaristic bunch. But that is hundreds of years later. In Nephi’s actual account of Zoram, there is nothing to suggest that Zoram himself is some sort of military man. Even in the wars with the Lamanites, it is Nephi who leads them to battle, not Zoram (see Jacob 1:10). To me, he seems to be a stock character added to make some of the plot work out. He’s rather one-dimensional.

Indeed, the whole brass plates adventure has me scratching my head. If it was so important for Lehi to have the brass plates, why didn’t the Lord just send an angel, put Zoram to sleep, extract the plates from the treasury, and deposit them on the doorstep of Lehi’s tent, as he did with the Liahona? Why cause Laban to be drunk, have Nephi murder him, and steal Zoram away from whatever family he had in Jerusalem? All this creates a more complicated storyline, but some of it doesn’t add up for me, at least not as it is told in the account of Nephi.

So, in conclusion, is Zoram a na‘ar or just a stock character? Maybe neither. Maybe he’s just a largely insignificant element in the story once they have the brass plates, and since engraving on plates is difficult and time-consuming, maybe Nephi just didn’t find him compelling enough to include more about him, his actions, or his background. Same goes, apparently, for Sam and the sons of Ishmael and younger brother Joseph and all the wives except maybe Sariah. And, while Laman and Lemuel are more two-dimensional, they too are pretty flat characters in the story. They serve as Nephi’s big nemesis, but what do we really know about their thoughts or feelings or motivations? Not much.  Nephi’s account is pretty much all about him and his dad.

Rock Star Takes Down Trump’s Communications Director

 

Apparently, Steven Cheung, White House Communications Director, took issue with Jack White’s criticism of all the gaudy gold in the Oval Office. White is a rock star, guitarist, composer, actor, producer, and record label owner. Cheung: “Jack White is a washed-up, has-been loser posting drivel on social media because he clearly has ample time on his hands due to his stalled career. It’s apparent he’s been masquerading as a real artist, because he fails to appreciate, and quite frankly disrespects, the splendor and significance of the Oval Office inside of ‘The People’s House.’” Pretty typical response by Trump or his minions to any criticism of the Orange Authoritarian. But Cheung should be careful about his targets. This time, he got more than he bargained for. Here is White’s fairly lengthy response:

“Listen, I’m an artist and not a politician so I’m in no need to give my answer or opinion on anything if I’m not inspired or compelled, but how funny that it wasn’t me calling out trump’s blatant fascist manipulation of govt, his gestapo ICE tactics, his racist remarks about Latinos, Native Americans, etc. his ridiculous ‘wall’ construction, his attacks on the disabled, his attempted coup and mob insurrection and destruction of the sacred halls of congress, his disparaging sexist and pedophilic remarks about women, his obvious attempts at distraction about being a close personal friend of Jeffrey Epstein and his inclusion in the Epstein files, his ignorance of the dying children in Sudan, Gaza, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, his lack of empathy for military veterans and those struggling with poverty, his attempts to dismantle healthcare, his obvious wimpy and pathetic kowtowing to the dictators Putin and Kim Jong Un, his nazi like rallies, his attempts to sell merchandise and products like Goya beans through the office of the President, his fake ‘gunshot to the ear’ that he showed no medical records or photographs of, his constant, constant, constant lying to the American people, etc. etc. etc.

… “No, it wasn’t me calling out any of that, it was the [expletive deleted] DECOR OF THE OVAL OFFICE remarks I made that got them to respond with insults. How petty and pathetic and thin skinned could this admin get? ‘Masquerading as a real artist’? Thank you for giving me my tombstone engraving! Well here’s my opinion, trump is masquerading as a human being. He’s masquerading as a christian, as a leader, as a person with actual empathy. He’s been masquerading as a businessman for decades as nothing he’s involved in has prospered except by using other people’s money to find loophole after loophole and grift after grift.

… “His staff of professional liar toadies like Steven Cheung and Karoline Leavitt have been covering up and masking his fascism as patriotism and fomenting hatred and division in this country on a daily basis. And I have ‘ample time on (my) hands’? That orange grifter has spent more tax payer money cheating at golf than helping ANYONE in the country. Improve. Anything. There is no progress with him, only smoke and mirrors and tax breaks for the ultra wealthy.

… “So maga folk, enjoy your concrete paving over of the rose garden, your 200 million dollar ballroom in the WH, and your gaudy ass gold spray painted trinkets from Home Depot, cause he ain’t spending any money on helping YOU unless you fit into his white supremacist country club rich idiot agenda. Wow, he hates who you hate . . . good for you, be proud of yourselves, how christian of you all. No intelligent person can defend this low life fascist. This bankruptor of casinos. This failed seller of trump steaks, trump vodka, trump water, etc. This man and his goon squad have failed upwards for decades and have fleeced the American people over and over. This professional golf cheat, this grifter who has hundreds of thousands of deaths from his inaction of the pandemic on his hands, this man that the majority of the country somehow were fooled into supporting and voting into office (through the flawed electoral college) and their love of reality TV stars.

… “Being insulted by the actual WH that this particular conman leads is a badge of honor to me, because anyone who trump supports and likes is a villain who gives nothing to their fellow man, only takes what can benefit themselves. And no I’m not a Democrat either, I’m a human being raised in Detroit, I’m an artist who’s owned his own businesses like his own upholstery shop and recording label since he was 21 years old who has enough street sense to know when a 3 card monte dealer is a cheap grifter and a thief.”

Well, Cheung got what he deserved: a large helping of the truth.

The Last American President, a Book Notice

 

Thirty years ago, Berrett-Koehler Publishers published my book Economic Insanity: How Growth-Driven Capitalism Is Devouring the American Dream. Berrett-Koehler was founded by Steve Piersanti, who started the company when he was fired as president of Jossey-Bass for refusing to lay off employees. I ran into Steve during the one year I worked as a literary agent. It was a reunion of sorts because Steve and I had been youth in the North Ogden 5th Ward. Steve is three years than I am, so we never went to school together, and I didn’t know Steve all that well back then. But Steve is one of the finest people you could ever meet. His publishing company is a leading-edge publisher of books on leadership, ethics, and organizational issues.

I have submitted a new book manuscript to Steve. It’s a follow-up to my now-thirty-year-old Economic Insanity. In the intervening years, the book market has changed dramatically, so Steve can’t afford to publish a book like mine that wouldn’t sell very many copies. I am, after all, a no-name in the market this book seeks to land in. I can live with that. But a couple of weeks ago, Steve sent me an email asking for my help in publicizing a book that Berrett-Koehler is releasing soon. It is by Thom Hartmann, who has a large following and a radio program, and he has written lots of very fine books.

This one, though, is probably the best and is undoubtedly the most timely and important. It is titled The Last American President: A Broken Man, a Corrupt Party, and a World on the Brink. Berrett-Koehler has made some sample pages available. They quite effectively summarize the book. The link to these sample pages is: https://berrettkoehler.sharefile.com/share/view/s038b78b6b8f444ffaba5aa0640460cd7.

I’ll copy the contents page here, so you can see what this book covers.

Contents
Introduction: The End Begins with a Smile   1

Part I The Making of Donald Trump   5
Chapter 1 Queens, Cruelty, and Fred Trump   7
Chapter 2 Roy Cohn’s Apprentice   17
Chapter 3 The Mask of Success   27

Part II The System That Built Trump   39
Chapter 4 The Party That Sold Itself Out   43
Chapter 5 Powered by Plutocrats   55
Chapter 6 The Death of Democracy Is Profitable   69
Chapter 7 From Birtherism to the Big Lie   81

Part III The Global Damage   95
Chapter 8 The Heist of Democracy: How America’s
Voting Rights Were Stolen in 2024   99
Chapter 9 America Ungoverned   105
Chapter 10 Autocrats United   113
Chapter 11 The Climate Collapse Presidency   123

Part IV The Last American President   125
Chapter 12 The Nightmare Scenario   129
Chapter 13 The Empathy Deficit: Democracy’s
Essential Ingredient   141
Chapter 14 Reform, Resist, and Remember   145

Epilogue   163
Notes   165
Acknowledgments   195
Index   197
About the Author   209

 

I’ve read Thom Hartmann before. He does excellent research and writes engagingly for a general readership. I would encourage everyone who sees this post to read the sample pages and, when it’s available, purchase this book.

Personality Types and Trump Support

 

A friend sent me a link to an article on the ZME Science website that I found both fascinating and disturbing. I checked out ZME to see what kind of reviews it gets. Turns out that ZME is based in Romania but publishes news on science in English. A media bias website considers it factual and reliable, albeit pro-science (which is good). This particular article, “This Study Finds a Chilling Link between Personality Type and Trump Support,” by Tudor Tarita, dated July 30, 2025, reports the results of a study led by University of North Texas psychologist Craig Neumann.

The article begins with this teaser: “In the years since Donald Trump emerged as the face of American conservatism, psychologists have grappled with a vexing question: why do so many Americans remain loyal to a morally questionable leader? Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims, he had an affair with an adult star, and consistently misused donations, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg; yet, he maintains a cult-like loyal following.” Since the study, Trump has conducted a wholesale attack on the institutions of democracy, unleashed a cruel deportation crusade, and has offended most of our former allies, and that’s still the tip of the iceberg. And yet his support among the MAGA faithful remains strong, although his overall approval rating is tanking. So, what explains this fervent devotion among the MAGAts? (No, that’s not a misprint. And they really are feasting upon the rotting corpse of the Republican Party.)

Neumann’s study was published in July in the Journal of Research in Personality and suggests that at least “part of the answer may lie deep within the personalities of his supporters. . . . The study analyzed responses from over 9,000 U.S. adults in two large surveys conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed questionnaires that assessed their political beliefs, empathy levels, and personality traits. The results consistently showed a pattern: the more favorably someone rated Trump, the more likely they were to display traits like narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—traits grouped under what researchers call a malevolent disposition.” But the reverse was also true. “Participants who scored higher on benevolent traits like humanism, faith in humanity, and respect for others tended to oppose Trump and lean politically liberal.”

Interestingly, these results were consistent across gender and racial groups, as well as income, education, age, and minority status. There were some differences, though. “White men who scored higher on psychopathic traits also showed stronger support for Trump and conservative ideology. Among men of minority status, however, psychopathy did not predict political ideology. This variation, researchers propose, could stem from differing lived experiences with social power, privilege, and marginalization.” This makes sense, and I’ll extrapolate on later on what this may mean for Latter-day Saints.

“The study also looked at empathy, and the findings were disturbing once again. Trump supporters reported significantly lower levels of affective empathy (emotional concern for others) and higher levels of dissonant empathy (enjoyment of others’ pain). Interestingly, their ability to understand how others feel (cognitive empathy) remained intact. In other words, they know what others are feeling, they simply appear to care less, on average. They enjoy others’ pain more as well. This adds a chilling nuance to the political landscape. It’s not that supporters of Trump can’t understand suffering—it’s that they may find it unimportant, or even gratifying.”

Tarita points out that psychologists have long noticed a link between conservative ideology and authoritarianism, but this new study extends that link to more extreme traits like “callousness and lack of empathy.” Trump’s specific approach to politics, however, is not traditional conservatism. There is a cruelty in Trump, seen in such acts as mocking disabled reporters and separating children from their parents, that speaks of a wanton disregard for other people, a clear indication of psychopathic tendencies. “The fact that so many people view these actions positively,” says Tarita, “reflects something deeper than policy preference. It says that many people agree with such dark acts.”

But what about traits on the other end of the spectrum, benevolent traits? The study indicated that “these traits were strongly linked with liberal political beliefs and a rejection of Trump. . . . These individuals exhibited a distinct psychological orientation rooted in affiliation, care, and prosocial behavior. In contrast, Trump supporters showed the opposite pattern: higher scores on malevolent traits and lower on benevolent ones, shaping their political identity.”

Predictably, men were more likely to display malevolent traits and to more strongly support Trump. Women, on the other hand, were more benevolent and “showed weaker links between personality and politics.”

The authors of the study “are careful to stress that their findings reflect group averages, not individual labels. . . . Still, the patterns are meaningful.”

This brings me to my main question. What does this study say about LDS support for Trump? It would be interesting to conduct a similar survey among just Latter-day Saints. Support among Mormons for Trump has been weaker than for other Republican candidates, but, still, they voted overwhelmingly for the convicted felon over the career prosecutor in the 2024 election. I know many Latter-day Saints who support Trump, despite everything they know about him. I know ever more who held their noses and voted for Trump because they somehow imagine that things would be even worse under any Democratic president. (I’d love to see a study on how watching Fox News affects LDS political beliefs.) Most of these Trump-voting or Trump-supporting Latter-day Saints are not psychopaths. They are good Mormons, as far as I can tell. Of course, I don’t know what goes on in the hearts of my fellow Church members, but I know enough to believe that they would not reflect the results of this study.

My own suspicion is that many LDS voters have been brainwashed for so many years (thanks, ETB) into thinking that Democrats are evil, perhaps primarily because of one particular issue—abortion—that they cannot imagine themselves voting for a Democrat. My own parents, habitual Fox News viewers, probably fell into that camp. My mom died in 2013, though, so she never had a chance to vote for or against Trump (but she was very concerned about all of “Obama’s czars,” apparently something she had heard on Fox). Before my dad’s dementia set in (sometime after he broke his hip in 2020), he was a Republican but not a Trump fan (“I wish he’d just keep his mouth shut”). Still, I wonder how my dad voted in 2016. I never asked.

What I find most striking about this study is that Trump’s most ardent support group is Evangelical Christians. This study indicates that, by and large, most of these supporters have personality traits that are completely at odds with the traits Jesus both demonstrated and encouraged his followers to embrace. This is a damning sign that Christianity is failing its adherents at a very fundamental level. And Trump’s behavior in his second rodeo, after the surveys used in this study were all completed, is far more extreme than during his first term in office. So, his supporters are excusing much more egregious behavior and policies (if we can call them that) this time around. But the results of this study indicate that Trump’s supporters are not just gullible. They haven’t just been duped by Fox News and the endless disinformation streaming out of the Trump propaganda machine. Many of them actually embrace and enjoy the malevolence and cruelty that Trump has brought to the Republican Party.

How, I ask yet again, can any Latter-day Saint or any would-be Christian be a Republican in Trump’s America?

Book of Mormon Questions #6 (History, Geography, DNA, etc.)

 To see the context for this and other questions in this series, please see the introduction, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

Who Were (Are) the Lamanites?

 

This is a very complicated question. It involves a few different topics: Book of Mormon geography, DNA studies, internal Book of Mormon history and prophecies, and statements by Joseph Smith and others. Too much here for one post, but I’ll at least lay out the parameters for now. Later on, I may explore some of the topics hinted at here.

 

Internal Book of Mormon History

It may appear at first glance that the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are pretty easy to identify: they are the descendants of Laman and Lemuel and all who followed them instead of Nephi. This group was cursed with a dark skin to differentiate them from the white-skinned Nephites. (Yes, I know that some modern readers have tried to explain this curse away, but their efforts are unconvincing at best.) Things start to get messy, though, with the missionary efforts of the sons of Mosiah, who convert King Lamoni and many of his people (and presumably others), who then join the Nephites in the greater land of Zarahemla.

Things get even more messy in 3 Nephi 2, where the Nephites and “all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord” (v. 12) combine to defend themselves against the Gadianton robbers, at which point the curse is taken away from the Lamanites so that “their skin became white like unto the Nephites; and their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites” (vv. 15–16). Presumably, there were still dark-skinned Lamanites who were not converted, but Mormon’s record is fairly silent about them. We do read in 3 Nephi 1:29 that some of the Lamanites’ children are led away by the lyings of the Zoramites to join the Gadianton robbers. We can only assume that they remain dark-skinned. But the Nephites under Lachoneus defeat the robbers and put to death all who refuse to enter into a covenant to forsake their ways. In 3 Nephi 6:3, some of the robbers who have entered into the covenant desire to remain Lamanites, so they are given lands, and peace begins to prevail.

Before long, however, the people become unequal and the church breaks up, except “among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith” (v. 14). It is unclear who these Lamanites are. If they are the Lamanites who had joined the Nephites to defeat the robbers and had become Nephites, why would they now be identified as Lamanites? Or if they are the Lamanites among the Gadianton robbers who entered into the covenant to forsake their ways, do they suddenly become more righteous than the Nephites who defeated them and pressed them into the covenant? A bit problematic either way.

Regardless, in chapter 7 Nephite society falls apart. The people have largely become evil again, and a new group of wicked lawyers, high priests, and judges combine to murder the chief judge (governor), but instead of taking over the government, they are unable to hold things together, and the people divide up into tribes based on family and friend relationships. A large secret combination makes a man named Jacob their king, and they flee to the northernmost part of the land, where they set up a kingdom. No indication if there are any Lamanites among them.

This is the state of affairs when the Savior destroys most of the Book of Mormon peoples. He then appears to those who are left, who are somehow the more righteous part of the people. How the massive destruction spares just the righteous is not explained, but whatever. The resurrected Jesus then teaches these people his gospel, sets up his church, and leaves his twelve disciples to manage affairs after his ascension. We then have about 166 years of peace (from Jesus’s appearance in the thirty-fourth year until the two hundredth year). Sometime toward the end of this peaceful stretch, however, “a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites” broke away, “and there began to be Lamanites again in the land” (4 Ne. 1:20).

This is a really odd development. After all the intermixing, for nearly 200 years, and after the Lamanites became fair-skinned, all of a sudden we have a group—that would have had to be a mixture of Nephites and Lamanites and Mulekites and whatever else—break away and take the name Lamanites. And it wasn’t just Lamanites. The Lamanites once again included Lemuelites and Ishmaelites as well (4 Ne. 1:38), almost as if the previous centuries of genetic mixing had not happened at all. And the Nephites weren’t just Nephites; they included Jacobites, Josephites, and Zoramites (4 Ne. 1:36). It’s a big stretch to believe that these groups were descended purely from the original Laman, Lemuel, Ishmael, Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, and Zoram (apparently Sam had no posterity). So, which of these could be considered descendants of the original Lamanites? Probably all of them. But these divisions apparently held until Mormon and all his people were destroyed (except for Moroni), and these new Lamanites then inhabited the promised land, wherever that is. But what color was their skin? We read of no new curse.

 

Book of Mormon Geography

So, where did the Book of Mormon account take place? Right. If you think I’m going to wade into that swamp, you’re crazier than I am. So I’ll just stick a toe in without getting too slimy. I’m pretty much a Book of Mormon geography agnostic. I’ve looked at the various options, including my favorite (the Malaysia theory—my favorite only because it’s so preposterous, although the geography does work better than any of the others), and the only conclusion I have reached is that all of them have disqualifying problems.

Internal evidence is pretty clear that the majority of Book of Mormon history took place in a very limited region, and that this region’s dominant feature was that it was a peninsula. I appreciate the efforts of Tyler Griffin and the Book of Mormon Virtual Scriptures Group, who came up with a map based solely on what’s in the book (see https://rsc.byu.edu/fall-2019/visualizing-people-places-plates-book-mormon). Their map shows where various places mentioned in the text are, in relation to each other. Significantly, their map strongly hints of a peninsula, but they conveniently blur the bottom of the map in cloudy mist and cut it off before the peninsula ends. Gotta keep those Mesoamerican theorists happy, I suppose. But it is obvious in the text that the Lamanites are trapped to the south in the land of Nephi. Nobody ever goes south from the land of Nephi. If the Lamanites could have, they would have expanded to the south, but they don’t. They’re always trying to go north. But the Nephites guard that narrow neck of land. So, I pretty much accept that the story takes place largely on this peninsula, with only the Nephites being able to push northward.

Some have assumed that the narrow neck of land was Panama and the land southward was the whole continent of South America, but the internal travels of the two main populations restrict the geography of the Book of Mormon to a fairly small region.

The Baja California theorists accept this limitation, as well as acknowledging that the story occurred on a peninsula, but their theory has other problems, primarily population. The Mesoamerican theorists have to distort the geography in the book as well as the points of the compass to force fit the narrative on their preferred geography. And the Heartland theorists have the same problem as well as the problem of scale to deal with. So, I’ve never seen a geographical model that can’t be disqualified by some pretty significant evidence. This leads to the problem of what modern pronouncements indicate.

 

Moroni and the Lord Weigh In

Of course, all of what follows in this section came through Joseph Smith, so we have to factor that into the equation, but both Moroni and the Lord have something to say about who the Lamanites are now (or at least who they were in the 1820s and 1830s). Let’s start with Moroni. When he first appeared to Joseph Smith, he told Joseph about “a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang” (JS–H 1:34, bold added). Joseph obviously believed that the Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon record were the ancestors of the peoples he knew as the American Indians. This belief was confirmed in several of the early revelations he received.

In what is now Doctrine and Covenants 3:18, the Lord tells Joseph that the purpose for which the plates have been preserved is so that “this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers.” In D&C 10, the Lord tells Joseph that what we know as the small plates of Nephi contained another account of what was on the lost 116 pages of the original manuscript and that the authors of that account had extracted a promise from him that “my gospel which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions” (v. 48) And who are these latter-day descendants of those early people?

We find the answer to that question a couple of years later, when he called Parley Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer Jr., and Ziba Peterson to “go into the wilderness among the Lamanites” (D&C 32:2) to preach the gospel. And where were these Lamanites? As explained in Richard Dilworth Rust’s article “A Mission to the Lamanites” in the Church’s “Revelations in Context” supplement to the Sunday curriculum, “Because of the Indian Removal Act passed in May 1830, the new territory for relocating American Indians was to be in present-day Kansas and Oklahoma. Thus, these missionaries to the Lamanites planned to go west from Independence, Missouri, into Indian Territory.” In Pratt’s autobiography, he describes a visit to the Seneca Indians in New York, while the missionaries were still in the United States. They then continued on to Kirtland, where they found Sidney Rigdon and his fellow Reformed Baptists, who were open to the missionaries’ message. In Kirtland, Frederick G. Williams joined the four missionaries, and eventually they made it to Independence. Leaving Whitmer and Peterson in town to earn money, Cowdery, Pratt, and Williams crossed over into Indian Territory, where they preached the message of the Book of Mormon to the Shawnee and the Delaware tribes. The Delawares were receptive, but a federal agent expelled the Mormon elders from Indian Territory. They sought authorization to return but were unsuccessful. So ended the mission to the Lamanites. They did, however, find Independence, Missouri, which Joseph’s revelations soon identified as the location for the city of New Jerusalem.

The salient point here, though, is that Joseph and his early followers considered all American Indians to be Lamanites. This can be seen also in Joseph’s “Zelph” experience with Zion’s Camp and in the Saints’ encounters over the next several decades with the tribes of the Great Basin, whom they also identified as Lamanites.

The Book of Mormon supports this view, especially in Nephi’s vision of the future of the promised land, in which he sees the coming of the Europeans to the New World and their impact on the native inhabitants of the land. “I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren [Laman and Lemuel]; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten” (1 Ne. 13: 14).

So, it is apparent that the Book of Mormon itself, Moroni, Joseph Smith, and even the Lord considered all native North Americans to be Lamanites. But how does this square with what we know from other sources about the Native Americans?

 

Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics

Archaeological evidence indicates that Native Americans began arriving in the Americas 60,000 years ago and continued until about 12,000 years ago. Obviously, this presents challenges for the Book of Mormon account. While some apologists find evidence in the book for other inhabitants of the “land of promise,” the account itself is strangely silent on such an important point, especially if the Nephites and Lamanites absorbed indigenous populations, as apologists argue, in order to make the numbers work out (population growth and such). You would think that the record keepers would have mentioned these indigenous groups, but they didn’t. We learn only of the Mulekites and the Jaredites (who were extinct, except for Coriantumr and, we assume, Ether, when the two groups had a brief encounter). The Book of Mormon speaks of the land of promise, especially in Nephi’s vision, as the entirety of at least North America, which would seem to indicate that all of the Native American tribes here are descended from Lehi. But if the Lehites intermarried over the centuries with not just the Mulekites but also scores of Native Americans, to the point that their genetic footprint has completely disappeared, how can we even consider Native Americans to be Lamanites?

The linguistic evidence is equally problematic. According to Wikipedia, “Over a thousand of these [Native American] languages are still used today, while many more are now extinct. The Indigenous languages of the Americas are not all related to each other; instead, they are classified into a hundred or so language families and isolates, as well as several extinct languages that are unclassified due to the lack of information on them.” There are various theories about the origins of indigenous languages. One theory is that there was a single, one-language migration to the New World, but this theory is rejected by most linguists. The large number of seemingly unrelated language families indicates a long history of linguistic development (and splintering), far longer than the period between the end of the Book of Mormon account and the arrival of Europeans in the New World.

I am fairly ignorant in both archaeology and linguistics and am relying on information summarized online. I am even more ignorant in genetics, but from what I can gather, using DNA to try to find a link (or prove no link) between living Native Americans and potential ancient semitic ancestors is a fool’s errand. According to Wikipedia again, “The Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism has also said that haplogroup testing is not a valid means of determining Native American ancestry, and that the concept of using genetic testing to determine who is or is not Native American threatens tribal sovereignty. Author of Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science, Kim TallBear (Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), agrees, stating that not only is there no DNA test that can indicate a tribe, but ‘there is no DNA-test to prove you’re Native American.’” TallBear writes, “‘Native American markers’ are not found solely among Native Americans. While they occur more frequently among Native Americans, they are also found in people in other parts of the world.”

Identifying genetic markers for ancient Jewish people is also a nightmare because of all the intermarriage and migration over the years. So, identifying any genetic markers for Lehi, a descendant of Joseph, would be impossible. A good summary of the futility of DNA research in this area is David Stewart’s 2006 article, “DNA and the Book of Mormon,” published in the (FARMS) Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 18, no. 1. This is, of course, an apologetic piece, and Stewart attempts to show that the lack of evidence actually supports Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but his summary of DNA research is quite informative and shows instead, I believe, that DNA evidence is not helpful to either side in this debate.

 

Conclusion (or Not)

I think it is pretty obvious that the indigenous peoples of North and South America were not all descended from Lehi, even though the Book of Mormon and statements from Moroni and the Lord (filtered through Joseph Smith) seem to indicate they were. And claiming that the Nephites and Lamanites intermarried with local, already present tribes in a small geographical area goes beyond what the Book of Mormon account says. A plain reading of the text indicates that there were descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, Zoram, Mulek, and Mulek’s party in the narrative. As far as the record attests, no descendants of the Jaredites survived and passed their genes on to the Nephites or Lamanites.

Skeptics will, of course, insist that the Book of Mormon is just another attempt (among many) to identify the origins of the American Indians, including an explanation for why they have a darker skin than their European invaders. I must admit that this explanation does have its appeal, especially considering all the other questions I have about Mormon’s book, but, as I confessed in the introduction to this intermittent series, the Book of Mormon is a complex and perplexing text. I’m not ready to claim I have it figured out.

So, who are (or were) the Lamanites? Beats me.

News Sources You Should Be Aware Of

 

Since there is so much disinformation and misinformation out there masquerading as news, it is important to find sources that can be trusted. As with history, so it is with current events (which is just very recent history): the more sources you read, the better you will be able to sift the wheat from the chaff (or, as is the case with Fox News, the weeds). I subscribe to the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Salt Lake Tribune. I also follow the Deseret News online since it is free, but since Trump’s arrival on the scene, I’ve found the DesNews to be a largely useless source, since it avoids most of what is actually happening in the world. But the Church’s involvement as a newspaper publisher is a topic I’ll reserve for another day. I find the three newspapers I subscribe to fairly valuable, but the Washington Post, in particular, sometimes tries to “bothsides” events that are not at all balanced.

So, in addition to these traditional news sources, I have several other sources that I find highly informative and quite accurate (if somewhat biased). The first is a daily email, titled “Letters from an American,” by Boston College history professor Heather Cox Richardson. She has a team of researchers who track down stories that may not appear in traditional news sources, and she often puts current events in the context of relevant historical events. Below, I’ll copy her latest, to give you an idea of what her daily letters are like (I doubt she’ll mind the free publicity).

The second source is Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize–winning economist, NYU professor, and former columnist at the New York Times. Paul retired from the NYT earlier this year because he felt his journalistic freedom was being stifled. I’m not at all sorry. At the Times, he was publishing a column twice a week. Now he posts something on his Substack every day. He is always informative about the economic effects of current policies (or prejudices, as the case often is with Trump, since he doesn’t really have policies). Some of his material is behind a subscription paywall, but he sends out plenty in a daily email for free, which is what I receive.

The third source is Katelyn Jetalina, who sends out a twice-weekly email titled “Your Local Epidemiologist.” Jetelina is an epidemiologist, data scientist, professor at Yale School of Public Health, senior scientific advisor to several government and nonprofit agencies, and cofounder of the Health Trust Initiative. She gives accurate information about public health issues, especially concerning vaccines. Her email is free, although some content is reserved for paid subscribers.

The fourth is the fastest-growing news organization in America (and perhaps on earth). It is the MeidasTouch Network. This is an extremely anti-Trump news source, but it claims to be unfettered by corporate money, funded solely by subscribers like me, so it is free to tell the truth without any outside influence. It was started by USC law professor Ben Meiselis and his brothers. MTN is a little heavy on self-promotion, but I find its daily news roundup by news editor Ron Filipkowski to be very informative (and often quite funny). Ron claims he spends 14 hours a day combing through all sorts of sources, and he regularly provides quotes from government officials and politicians (in both parties), experts in various fields, and social media exchanges from all sides.

Frankly, I long for the day when Trump vanishes from the scene, the Republican Party gets over its personality cult phase, and we can return to a quieter news cycle, where we can focus on real emergencies, like global warming and defeating Vlad Putin. That may take a while, though, so here is Heather Cox Richardson’s latest. She always provides sources at the end of her letters.

* * *

This weekend saw the development of an extraordinary rift in MAGA world.

The conflict began last Monday when the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a memo saying that it had conducted a thorough review of all the evidence the department had collected about convicted sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein, who died in his prison cell in 2019 awaiting trial on additional sex-trafficking charges. The memo said that the department’s “systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list’” and that there was “no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.” It said the DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which operates within the DOJ, had determined “that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

The memo also said FBI investigators had concluded that Epstein died by suicide, releasing footage from a camera from the unit in which Epstein was being held at the time of his death.

For years now, Trump and his loyalists have claimed Epstein was murdered to protect the rich and powerful men who were preying on children. This theory dovetailed with the QAnon conspiracy theory that Trump was combating a secret ring of cannibalistic child molesters who included Democratic politicians, government officials, film stars, and businessmen. MAGA influencers, including Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, pushed the Epstein theories, and MAGA followers believed them, hoping to bring down Democratic politicians like the Clintons.

Once in power, they vowed, they would release the client list and provide the truth about Epstein’s death. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi told the Fox News Channel that the client list was “sitting on my desk right now.” Patel is now director of the FBI—in part because MAGA senators like Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) believed he would release more information on Epstein and child sex trafficking rings—and Bongino is the FBI’s deputy director. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) called for Americans to vote for Trump in 2024 because “Americans deserve to know why Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

The announcement that the DOJ would not provide further information and that Epstein had died by suicide set off a firestorm among MAGA. Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec wrote: “We were all told more was coming. That answers were out there and would be provided.”

On Tuesday, when a reporter asked about Epstein during a press opportunity at a cabinet meeting, Trump responded: “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years. Are people still talking about this guy? This creep? That is unbelievable.”

Trump’s attempt to turn attention away from the story only drew attention to it. While MAGA focused on the idea that the people on an Epstein client list would be Democrats, in fact the person most closely associated with Epstein in popular culture was Trump himself. The two men were photographed and filmed together a number of times. In 2002, according to New York magazine, Trump said: “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy…. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

On June 5, after a falling-out with Trump, billionaire Elon Musk posted on social media: “Time to drop the really big bomb: [Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” He followed that post up with another saying: “Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.” He later deleted the posts and said they had gone too far.

After Trump tried to downplay the story last week, it gained momentum. MAGA influencers began to call for Bondi to be fired, and Bongino began to talk of resigning from the FBI over Bondi’s memo and handling of the issue.

Then, at 5:21 Saturday evening, Eastern Daylight Time, Trump posted a long, incoherent screed on social media. In it, he defended Attorney General Pam Bondi—who is, of course, doing his bidding concerning the files—and tried to bring MAGA together again, warning that “selfish people” were trying to hurt his “PERFECT administration” by focusing on Epstein. In apparent contradiction to the story Bondi had told, he suggested the Epstein files existed, but then nonsensically said they were “written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 ‘Intelligence’ Agents, ‘THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,’ and more? They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called “friends” are playing right into their hands. Why didn’t these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it? They haven’t even given up on the John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. Files,” he wrote.

“No matter how much success we have had, securing the Border, deporting Criminals, fixing the Economy, Energy Dominance, a Safer World where Iran will not have Nuclear Weapons, it’s never enough for some people. We are about to achieve more in 6 months than any other Administration has achieved in over 100 years, and we have so much more to do. We are saving our Country and, MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, which will continue to be our complete PRIORITY,” Trump wrote.

“The Left is imploding! Kash Patel, and the FBI, must be focused on investigating Voter Fraud, Political Corruption, ActBlue, The Rigged and Stolen Election of 2020, and arresting Thugs and Criminals, instead of spending month after month looking at nothing but the same old, Radical Left inspired Documents on Jeffrey Epstein. LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB—SHE’S GREAT! The 2020 Election was Rigged and Stolen, and they tried to do the same thing in 2024—That’s what she is looking into as AG, and much more.

“One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

For the first time ever, Trump got ratioed on his own platform, meaning that there were more comments on his post than likes or shares, showing disapproval of his message. According to Jordan King of Newsweek, by 10:45 this morning (Eastern Time) it had more than 36,000 replies but only 11,000 reposts and 32,000 likes.

Trump sounds panicked, not only over the Epstein issue itself, but also because he cannot control the narrative his followers are embracing. After stoking the fire of his followers’ anger against what they seemed to see as powerful men getting away with crimes against children, he is now being burned by it. His reflex is to return to his greatest hits, accusing Democrats of writing the Epstein files and then, as he always, always, always does, snapping back to the Russia scandal and calling it a hoax.

Over the weekend, attendees at a conference held by the right-wing Turning Point USA booed the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case. MAGA influencers kept up the drumbeat; Matt Walsh called the administration’s about-face on releasing information “obvious bullsh*t.” Natalie Allison of the Washington Post reported that even the Fox News Channel warned this morning that “[t]here has to be some explanation” and that questions about the way the administration is handling the Epstein files were “very valid.”

Musk, who controls the X social media platform preferred by the right wing, is amplifying the story. After Trump’s Saturday post, Musk wrote to his 222 million followers: “Seriously. He said ‘Epstein’ half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein. Just release the files as promised.”

Trump appears to be planning to regain control of the narrative by persecuting his political opponents.

But it is not clear that will silence MAGA voters who backed Trump in part because they thought he would lead the fight against an elite group of pedophiles controlling the country. As Trump’s policies on the economy, immigration, tax cuts, firing of government employees, and gutting of disaster relief have soured Americans on his administration, loyalists stayed behind him. Now he has turned against their chief cause, giving them an off-ramp from a presidency that seems increasingly off the rails.

Mike Flynn, who served as Trump’s first national security advisor until forced to resign for lying about his contact with Russian operatives, posted on social media: “[President Trump] please understand the EPSTEIN AFFAIR is not going away. If the administration doesn’t address the massive number of unanswered questions about Epstein, especially the ABUSE OF CHILDREN BY ELITES (it is very clear that abuse occurred), then moving forward on so many other monumental challenges our nation is facing becomes much harder.”

Flynn concluded: “We cannot allow pedophiles to get away. I don’t personally care who they are or what elite or powerful position they hold. They must be exposed and held accountable!!!”

—

Notes:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline

Haley Chi-Sing, “Bondi says Epstein client list ‘sitting on my desk right now,’ and is reviewing JFK, MLK files,” Fox News, February 21, 2025.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-jeffrey-epstein-question-this-creep/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-puts-bomb-thrower-dan-bongino-on-blast-for-epstein-files-meltdown/

Emma Colton, “DOJ brass vowed full transparency on Epstein before turning up empty-handed,” Fox News, July 13, 2025.

The Bulwark

Case Closed on Epstein? Not So Fast

A HOST OF NERVOUS INDIVIDUALS—including President Donald J. Trump—must have breathed a sigh of relief over the weekend when the Department of Justice announced that “no fu…

Read more

3 days ago · 389 likes · Philip Rotner

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/6/what-has-musk-accused-trump-of-in-relation-to-the-epstein-files

Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post, July 12, 2025, 5:21 p.m.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-truth-social-post-pam-bondi-2098351

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/7/epstein-no-client-list-died-suicide-justice-department-says

https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/trumps-epstein-problem

The Bulwark

The Case for Epstein Trutherism

1. The Lost City of E…

Read more

5 days ago · 707 likes · 544 comments · Jonathan V. Last

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/12/turning-point-usa-conference-concerns-trump/

https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-breaks-silence-on-donald-trumps-epstein-file-demand/

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/michael-flynn-resigns-timeline

X:

elonmusk/status/1944239510604460045

GenFlynn/status/1944214943198286033

Bluesky:

did:plc:4lx6nur5wstwoc4wtgj56kyu/post/3lturenqtlc2c

marcelias.bsky.social/post/3ltscrpm4js24

thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3ltvbqkutuc26

Thoughts from All Over on Originalism

 

Sorry for not posting for a while. We’ve been busy with some basement remodeling after a drainpipe broke. And then my wife and I helped drive my sister to Wichita for her mission. She didn’t want to drive alone, and the Church didn’t want her to either, so we split the driving duties and kept her company. It was also a great excuse for us to visit our 49th and 50th states. We had been to all but Arkansas and Oklahoma, so now we have hit the big 5-0. Anyway, that’s my excuse, but we’re back now, and I thought this topic might interest some readers.

I’m no legal scholar, but I have always found the philosophy behind originalism to be quite suspect. I subscribe to the New York Times and read pieces from it virtually every day, but I rarely get into the comment section of the articles. Today, however, I finally got around to reading “The Supreme Court Is Divided in More Ways Than You’d Think,” by J. Joel Alecia, originalist law professor at the Catholic University, published on June 9, 2025, and I opened up the comments to see what readers had to say about originalism. I found it quite fascinating. Here’s a sampling of the 531 comments. (I’ve corrected a couple of words [in brackets] that you might trip over but have left the comments otherwise unedited, which took some self-restraint, believe me.) Enjoy.

 

Craig M Oliner

Merion Station, Pennsylvania June 10

What does originalism say about social media use by children?

 

Funes el Memorioso

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius June 10

You l[o]st me at “originalists such as myself”. The Constitution was written before the Industrial Revolution, when Marie Antoinette still wore her head, and Beethoven was a pre-teen. The world has changed, dude. So should the Constitution.

 

Chris

CA June 10

This is a well written and scholarly view of originalism. I will now rebut your thesis from the cheap seats: Originalism is neither a philosophy nor a discipline as practiced by this court. It is a tool. A tool that is taken off the shelf when it can be used to support the Justices’ ideology and political worldview and utterly ignored when it does not support the answer that they want to arrive at. Barrett may keep some faith with originalist philosophy but the others just use it as window dressing when it is convenient. Sorry.

 

KeninDFW

DFW June 10

This originalism is ridiculous. In my 7th grade Civics class in the late 70s we learned the Constitution was purposely writ[t]e[n] in vague and unspecific language to allow justices “in the future” to interpret the document and apply it for “future” generations. Congress was tasked with writing specific language in their statutes to address current situations. Congress has the power to make, modify and repeal laws that are then signed by the President, hence we have the separation of powers. Unfortunately states have loaded up their state constitutions with outdated and obsolete laws like you have to tie your horse to the railing before going inside the saloon which remain and are never repealed. We need to strike originalism from our justices and stop insisting that machine guns are just fine and dandy.

 

Ken Winkes

Conway, WA June 10

Seeking answers to most contemporary problems and challenges in a document written 250 years ago makes no more sense that divining bird entrails , consulting runes or casting dice. No modern weaponry in the Founders’ day. No atomic energy. No computers. Heck, only an inkling of electricity, and oh, yeah, no unitary executive, and not even a White House. Who would claim their presidential immunity decision was originalist, tho it sure was original. Alito just makes stuff up. The conservatives, originalists or not, always decide in favor or corporations—no mention of them in the Constitution—over people. Republicans in the pocket of Big Business isn’t very original either.

 

Dave

Buffalo NY June 10

This writer claims that simply because this court is guided by some oddly concocted Constitutional Theory, they are immune from criticisms of being “lawless and political.” That’s like claiming that pseudo-Scientists working under assumptions based on The Flat Earth Theory are going to come to objectively sound conclusions.

 

Slate Hardon

Cincinnati June 10

Originalism as such is the most politically opportunistic methodology for judicial decision making, despite author’s assertion to the contrary. The Justices’ understanding of the original intent of Constitutional provisions always conforms to their contemporary ideological and political positions—and sometimes even to the interests of a particular office holder. No current judge could possibly know the “intent” of the drafters of Constitutional provisions when the drafters themselves could not agree at the time to a singular, uniform meaning of their words. After ratification, there were immediate disagreements over the meaning of the Constitution—and the drafters were still alive. Within decades of ratification, we fought a civil war over differing views of the meaning of the Constitution. It’s convenient now for our “orginalist” Justices that the original drafters are not around to dispute their interpretations. But fortunately a handful of 21st century right wing Justices uniquely know the precise intent of a squabbling bunch of 18th century politicos with different interests and constituencies desperately trying to reach a deal to keep the country from falling apart. Originalism is a scam.

 

FreewayAs

Georgia June 10

In my view doctrines of Constitutional interpretation are less relevant than ideological orientation. The conservative Justices in particular seem to work backwards from a decision they politically want to arrive at and mix and match doctrinal arguments and foundational texts to get there.

 

Peggy Hart

Silverton, Oregon June 10

Two things: *Originalism is not original — The Founders came out of the British legal system which is based not on a written Constitution, but rather on precedent. *Originalists might remember that Slave Codes were part of the colonial and US legal systems at the time of the Constitution. Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott Decision, refers to these Slave Codes as “special laws” governing relations between white people and black people. Under these “special laws,” the slave master and patrollers suffered minimal or no legal consequences for violent abuses of black slaves. Violence was necessary to slavery. So was immunity from the law The 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause aimed to set down a foundation of one legal system instead of the “original” two. Professor Eric Foner, scholar of Reconstruction, argues that the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution constitute part of the original document. The originalist jurist must decide this: Is the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” — no more slave laws, no more immunity from prosecution — more, or less, original than colonial and extra-Constitutional Slave Codes from the 18th century? The Supreme Court has given prosecutorial immunity to the US President, without mentioning its historical precedent: the freedom of slave masters and patrollers to mistreat Taney’s “people of African descent”. This is a false freedom, because it only exists if the rights of others are extinguished and due process is ignored.

 

John Pace

Memphis June 10

I’m waiting to hear how “originalists” came up with the justification for giving the president immunity for official acts. This nonsense is not only not found in the Constitution — it was deliberately NOT granted to the Executive in Article II — it actually is contradicted by the Federalist Papers and the determined spirit to avoid enabling the president to acquire the power of a king. It has been clear for decades that originalism is a convenient excuse for taking any action desired in pursuit of a political agenda.

 

Maurie Beck

Encinitas June 9

What does Originalism remind you of? Creationism and Fundamentalist Christianity. Originalism is a return to the original constitution, just like Fundamentalist Christians want the country to return to the true Christianity, which is only reflected in the words of the Bible. Our law would revert to Biblical Law, which sanctions stoning to death for all sorts of behavior that is now considered normal an[d] not criminal. Unfortunately, a return to real Constitutional Originalism would dispense with all but the Ten Amendments. In other words, the 13th and 14th Amendments that outlawed slavery and gave Black people full citizenship should be overturned to deliver the country back to the vision of the Founding Fathers. Of course, a return to Biblical Law would also restore slavery as a god given right.

 

DAC

Canada June 9

Funny how originalists turned a blind eye to “a well regulated militia”, found that corporations are people, that money is equivalent to speech and that women can be forced to bear children. Originalism pretends to be principled but it is a malleable tool that is deployed to enshrine the power and privileges of wealth.

 

Carol

Petaluma, CA June 9

It occurs to me that the shapers of the Constitution would be rather horrified at this concept of ‘originalism.’ These men were bold for their time, envisioning governance by the people, and discarding the strictures of a monarchy. And yet, here we are 237 years post ratification and intellectually lazy, backwards thinkers on the Supreme Court cannot meet the challenges of the century we actually live in.

 

Welby Warner

St. Thomas, VI June 9

This theory of “originalism” is an invented one that can be applied any way the originalist desires, and here’s why. The declaration of independence stated as a presumption that all men are created equal to get the world on the side of the USA in its fight against the British. Having obtained worldwide approval for their cause, they wrote a constitution that violated the premise of the declaration of independence and classified certain persons as less than what the declaration said they were. Inevitably, the conflict between the original premise and the constitution had to surface, and this was corrected by the amendments to the constitution. The idea of originalism presumes that the writers of the constitution got it right the first time, and if this was correct, there would be no need for amendments. So, is the goal of originalists to take us back to the original constitution, and abandon the amendments? This view would erase the concept of progress, the idea that later generations can build on what was learned before, and break new grounds in knowledge and human development. Is the premise of originalism equivalent to the idea that progress is impossible? If originalists believed that, they should never be using computers since these were unknown at the time of the writing of the constitution.

 

Al Orin

NYC June 9

Originalism is such arrant nonsense, but it is a fiction that has served as a clever disguise for straight-out conservatism. It is impossible to know what each legislator of each of the 13 state legislatures were thinking when they voted to ratify the constitution, let alone the thinking of every legislator in each of the 37 states that later ratified the constitution. And it is impossible to know what all of the legislators were all thinking when they ratified the bill of rights and the later amendments, particularly the 14th amendment, which modified the constitution’s original text and meanings. This is in addition to the nonsensical idea that today’s legislation should be forever enchained by the conceptions of late 18th century — before the invention of electricity, mass communications, the modern business corporation, etc. and before the discovery of the atom, evolution, and DNA.

 

A.D.

California June 9

Originalism is evil sophistry. “Let’s interpret a document intended to last generations based on bad historical research and the imagined specificity of an era in which white men owned black people. It is inconceivable that the drafters or the those who approved the Constitution thought that 250 years later its ideals, written in broad sweeping language, would be eviscerated in the name of their own historical prejudices.

 

Trisha

Michigan June 9

The constitution was written by people who did not want a king. But it seems like that is what we now have under the current president. Given to us by a so-called originalist group of justices. All of your arguments are trumped by that counter argument. Your article is thereby null and void.

 

Jamie Alderiso

Palm Beach County Florida June 9

“This Supreme Court, contrary to accusations that it is lawless and political, is more committed to a particular constitutional theory than any Supreme Court has been since at least the 1940s.” With all due respect, is this supposed to serve as some mollification to the Court’s critics? Any individual who purports the Court’s neutrality in interpreting the law is woefully delusional. And let’s talk some about originalism. The ontological conception of the idea under law is inane. Yes, it is inane even in its conception. Why would a text written in the late 18th century, albeit one that was written to serve as a guiding light for the sanctity of our nation going forth in administering governance and the rule of law, be inappropriately scrutinized to ascertain the true, original meaning of its writers? Originalism is a smokescreen to hide the Right’s intentions of reshaping the larger culture. The Judiciary’s power is obscene and the most undemocratic of our three branches of government. The constitution doesn’t guarantee a right to an abortion? Correct, abortions aren’t mentioned in the text. You know what else isn’t? The right to board an aircraft. I wonder why. Originalism is a smokescreen to ferment a potent agenda of social conservatism, and it is the exact reason there is no trust in the courts from the American people.

 

Brett

Sydney [Australia, I presume] June 9

Seriously what is wrong with Americans. Even (apparently) intelligent people can say with a straight face that the laws of the land should be based on what a few white males thought hundreds of years ago. How can what they thought then be valid and applicable to a world that is completely different?

 

Matt

Iowa June 9

“...judges ought to interpret the Constitution according to the meaning it had when it was ratified.” When the Constitution was ratified, judicial review of congressional legislation was not a function of the Supreme Court or any other court. Perhaps the originalists have forgotten that. Well, it’s pretty much a moot point now, as constitutional government appears to be moribund, if not already deceased.

 

Arno

Berkeley CA June 9

Such window dressing must make for wonderful conversations at faculty events, and given your employer and political orientation, you are likely to remain faculty. Huzzah. You know in your heart it’s just window dressing. What, exactly, did the founders feel the correct level of regulation for high capacity magazines may have been? Shall we plumb Jefferson’s heart to divine what he makes of AI? Originalism is and ever has been an attempt to legislate through court action, just as you persecute others for doing. You just want to legislate a return to the eighteenth century.

 

Marc

CT June 9

There’s no such thing as originalism, it’s just the justices opinion on how something should be interpreted and provides cover for unpopular decisions. In essence it’s one big rationalization to try and provide a construct for a certain idealogy.

 

Patrick Deaton

St. Louis June 9

Originalism is hogwash. Read Erin Chemerinsky’s book Worse Than Nothing. It is a devastating critique of originalism.

 

Martin

Chicago June 9

Originalism is just another name for a seance conducted by charlatans channeling a bunch of dead people’s “thoughts”.