Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Latter-day Saint
Lamanite Identity, Muslim Identity, and Identity Politics

Lamanite Identity, Muslim Identity, and Identity Politics

Last updated on: August 14, 2026 at 4:11 pm by Dan Peterson

0 Comments

Lamanite Identity, Muslim Identity, and Identity Politics 2026-08-14T16:11:32-06:00 Dan Peterson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A detail from Minerva Teichert’s large and dramatic mural in the World Room of the Manti Utah Temple. While the temple was dedicated in 1888, Teichert’s mural — replacing previous work (probably by the Norwegian-American painter Danquart Weggeland) — was added in 1947. The photograph comes from http://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com. I tried to write to ask permission to use this image, as invited, but the email address didn’t work. If the proprietor of the site has a concern, I will happily remove the image.

Two new but somewhat related articles appeared today in Interpreter. The first of them is “Estranged No More: Covenant and a Reclaimed Identity of the Lamanites” (Interpreter A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 69 [2026]: 401-424), which was written by John E. Cochran II:

Abstract: This article reexamines Lamanite identity in the Book of Mormon, arguing that in addition to referencing a specific branch of Lehi’s posterity, even more importantly, the term Lamanite can also function as a covenantal designation describing those estranged from God yet remembered through divine mercy. Drawing on Jacob 1:13–14 and related passages that define Nephite and Lamanite identity by covenant allegiance, this study situates the term within a redemptive pattern of estrangement and return. Read in hindsight, this framework can be applied to reframe the 1830 mission to the Lamanites with an interpretive lens that reveals the limits of merely lineage-based expectations of covenant belonging. Integrating scripture with early Restoration history and theological reflection, the article shows how covenant identity transcends ancestry while preserving cultural particularity. The result is a vision of Lamanite identity that is both ancient and expansive, bearing witness to a God who gathers those who respond to covenantal grace.

Accompanying “Estranged No More” is “Interpreting Interpreter: ‘Lamanite’ as a Covenantal Identity,” written by Kyler Rasmussen:

This post is a summary of the article “Estranged No More: Covenant and a Reclaimed Identity of the Lamanites” by John E. Cochran II in Volume 69 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. All of the Interpreting Interpreter articles may be seen at https://interpreterfoundation.org/category/summaries/. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter series is available at https:/interpreterfoundation.org/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought/.

A video introduction to this Interpreter article is now available on all of our social media channels, including on YouTube at https://youtube.com/shorts/Ky66PSHLQ5E.

The Takeaway: Cochran looks at how the term “Lamanite” is used in the Book of Mormon, highlighting it as a covenantal orientation rather than an ethnic label, one with the promise of repentance and turning toward God. He argues that the early Saints’ mission to the Lamanites in the 1830s is best understood in the covenantal light.

The 1830-1831 Mission to the Lamanites (Robert T. Barrett, LDS Media Library)

The second of them is “Dynastic Dynamics II: Lamanite Governance and Politics” (Interpreter A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 69 [2026]: 425-450), which was written by Noel Hudson:

Abstract: The Book of Mormon preserves only fragmentary evidence concerning Lamanite internal politics. Most references to the Lamanites come through Nephite narrators, whose focus usually centers on the many wars, missionary activity, and Nephite affairs, rather than on Lamanite institutions. Even so, the narratives in the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, and 3 Nephi contain enough incidental detail to permit a cautious reconstruction of important developments in Lamanite political history. This study proposes that from the time of Zeniff to the rise of the Gadianton order, Lamanite society underwent substantial military, administrative, and dynastic change. More significantly, many major developments in Lamanite political and military life seem to have been shaped by successive waves of Nephite dissenters, including the Amulonites, Amalekites, and Zoramites. In that sense, many of the conflicts commonly described as Nephite–Lamanite wars may be more precisely understood as struggles in which Lamanite populations were repeatedly drawn into contests rooted in Nephite factionalism. Although some parts of this reconstruction remain speculative, the cumulative evidence suggests a more dynamic and internally differentiated picture of Lamanite history than is often assumed.

Accompanying “Dynastic Dynamics II” is “Interpreting Interpreter: Lamanite Political Development,” written by Kyler Rasmussen:

This post is a summary of the article “ Dynastic Dynamics II: Lamanite Governance and Politics” by Noel Hudson in Volume 69 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship. A video introduction to this Interpreter article is now available on all of our social media channels, including on YouTube at https://youtube.com/shorts/y5PNzsBZA-Q.

The Takeaway: Hudson examines the Book of Mormon text for hints of Lamanite political dynamics and governance structures. He argues that Lamanite governance developed substantially over time, in part through the intervention of Nephite dissenters.

The Islamic Center of America — the largest mosque in the United States — is located in Dearborn, Michigan. I believe that Muslim citizens who reside in Michigan have the right to vote and to run for office, just as Jewish, agnostic, Catholic, Orthodox, Latter-day Saint, Evangelical, and other citizens do. (Wikimedia Commons public domain image)

Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for the 2026 Michigan election to the United States Senate, has called out Republicans, including his GOP opponent Mike Rogers, after the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued press releases and ads attacking him that refer to him by his full name, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed. (See here.). He says that it’s a dogwhistle designed to emphasize his being a Muslim and, thus, to appeal to anti-Muslim prejudice among the electorate.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that his charge is right — and I say this as someone who opposes socialism in all its forms and who hopes that El-Sayed, a Democratic Socialist, loses in November. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who is (I believe) the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, defends the references to El-Sayed’s full name by saying that people have often called him “Timothy Eugene Scott.” But I’ll bet that they don’t do it very often, and Senator Scott’s response seems pretty plainly disingenuous to me.

Appeals to rank anti-Muslim prejudice are likely to be successful with substantial portions of the voting population. (Remember references to “Barack Hussein Obama”? Against whom, for the record, I voted twice?) I’ve had to respond to a couple of anti-Muslim bigots on Facebook just today. (A hopeless waste of time, of course, but I simply can’t silently let some things pass without contradiction.) So this tactic will probably have its desired effect, to at least some degree.

But I do want to post my own little complaint about the name Abdul El-Sayed. It reflects common practice among people with Arabic or Arabic-style names who live in the West. But it makes no sense in Arabic. Permit me to explain:

The Arabic word ‘abd (عبد) means “slave” or “servant,” and, followed by the definite article el- or al-, it means “servant/slave of the” — which is obviously incomplete. It requires a noun (always a divine title) to complete the phrase. Common examples are ‘Abd al-Malik (“Servant of the King”), ‘Abd al-Jabbar (“Servant of the Omnipotent”), ‘Abd al-Karim (“Servant of the Noble/Generous [One]”), ‘Abd Allah or ‘Abdullah (“Servant of God”), and, among Christians, ‘Abd al-Massih (“Servant of the Messiah/Christ”). Abdulrahman or ‘Abd al-Rahman means “Servant of the Merciful”). My complaint is that you really can’t or should’t separate Abdul (“Servant of the”) from the rest of the name. But immigrants or children of immigrants from Muslim or Arab nations often do it, so I’m fighting a losing battle.

As to the name Mohamed (or, my preferred spelling, Muhammad), it’s probably the most common personal name on the planet — so common, in fact, that men bearing it often don’t actually use it. For example, two former presidents of Egypt were Muhammad Anwar el-Sadat and Muhammad Hosni Mubarak. The last shah of Iran was Mohammad Reza Pahlevi. And on and on.

Previous Post

August 13, 2026

Will I see you on Tuesday? Wednesday? Thursday? Friday?

Next Post

August 15, 2026 Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and the Open Mind

What is the shortest book in the New Testament?

Select your answer to see how you score.

3 John Jude Philemon 2 John