Episode 18: Same-Sex Marriage and Mormonism

Well done, y’all. Thanks for taking the time and effort to make these podcasts. They are consistently enlightening.

Is there an online link to the dialog articles that nelson-seawright references?

I think the church’s position is pritty simple so talking about mormon theology and same-sex marriage is simple. it is not happening now or in the near future. I was a good podcast though

Carlos said: “God has never eliminated discrimination based on sexual orientation for marriage, if anything he has gone the other way with the proclamation on the family and such.”

Can you point me to the proclamation on the family issued by God? I have not seen it. I would think that such a proclamation would be big news. I have seen a proclamation by the leaders of the LDS Church. You are not suggesting that when the apostles issue a proclamation it is equivalent to a proclamation by God, are you?

I’m only 30 minutes in but I have to agree with John Gustav-Wrathall on this. There is very little Mormon specific content in this podcast. Honestly I don’t find the gay marriage question for society very interesting as I see it as inevitable. I think its impact on Mormonism is what is interesting and not as clear.

I cant wait to hear this one.
I havent yet but I”m sure that I will be yelling at my ipod during it.

the title alone tells me I”m in for a treat.

Try as you may you’re not getting anywhere with me or most believing mormons I suspect.

There isn’t a problem at all in the lamanite issue for us. That they have gone from only ancesters to principal ancesters is only semantics and doesn’t change anything the 1845 people said. But when a single apostle gives an opinion such as McConkies views on the possible timing of the second comming, well that’s just an opinion.

Anyway all of these matters are dependant on what one’s understanding of the Spirit is and I’m starting to think that you never seek the guide that only comes from the spirit of God to differentiate these matters. If that’s the case, well good luck to you, stick to science only. But keep in mind that things in mormondom change regularly as per Gods request, such as the Temple ceremony and polygamy.

Carlos,

You said that when the apostles speak unitedly, as with the Proclamation on the Family, they are speaking the words of God, that their words are the equivalent of God’s word (see supra #s 4, 9, 12, 14, 15). I questioned that, but you assure me that you are proclaiming Mormon doctrine with that position. And I don’t doubt that many Mormons would agree with you that it is a fair statement of Mormon teachings on the subject. (I even added the citation from D&C 1:38 for good measure). But here is the problem: the Lamanite issue is not simply a one-word change in the introduction to the Book of Mormon. It’s much larger than that.

The problem is that for over a century and a half, Mormon prophets and apostles have consistently, repeatedly taught that the American Indians (indeed, all the indigenous peoples of North, Central, and South America, as well as the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Islands, according to President Spencer W. Kimball and others, including President Gordon B. Hinckley) were of the House of Israel, being direct descendants of Father Lehi of Book of Mormon fame. Indeed, this teaching is found in Mormon scripture, including the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine & Covenants. And it is found in the united words of the Twelve Apostles in the 1845 Proclamation to the World, which you say is the equivalent of the word of God Himself. It is not so easy to dismiss canonized scripture, official proclamations, General Conference addresses, and temple dedicatory prayers as merely the words and opinions of “prophets speaking as men and not prophets” on this issue. That’s the problem. And it doesn’t go away simply by wishing it away. Here is what the united 12 apostles bore testimony of, claiming to have the spirit of prophecy and the keys to speak for God to the whole world, in 1845:

“We also bear testimony that the ‘Indians’ (so called) of North and South America are a remnant of the tribes of Israel, as is now made manifest by the discovery and revelation of their ancient oracles and records.

And that they are about to be fathered, civilized, and made one nation in this glorious land.

They will also come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and of the fulness of the gospel; and they will embrace it, and become a righteous branch of the house of Israel.”

Further:

“Let the government of the United States also continue to gather together, and to colonize the tribes and remnants of Israel (the Indians), and also to feed, clothe, succour, and protect them, and endeavour to civilize and unite; and also to bring them to the knowledge of their Israelitish origin, and of the fulness of the gospel which was revealed to, and written by their forefathers on this land, the record of which has now come to light.”

And:

“He has revealed the origin and the records of the aboriginal tribes of America, and their future destiny.—And we know it.”

Now the apologists tell us that while Lehi may have been one of the ancestors of some American Indians, the DNA evidence is lost because Lehi’s family intermixed with a much larger indigenous population from eastern Asia, but the Indians are still Lamanites because, I guess, just having one ancestor 2600 years ago is enough to make one a Lamanite and a member of the House of Israel. Of course, if that is true of the Indians, it is true of all of us. The way genetics works, if a person living 2600 years ago had grandchildren, then virtually ever person living on the earth today can claim that person as their ancestor. If that’s all that is required to be a “Lamanite” then we are all Lamanites. And if that’s the case, then the scriptures and the teachings of the latter-day prophets really don’t make any sense at all, do they? The reason this is a problem, theologically–and it is a problem–is that the rationalizations the apologists need to employ to explain away the scientific data, if applied across the board, eviscerate key Mormon doctrines on the scattering and gathering of Israel, a central theme of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and latter-day teachings of the prophets. It’s a lot more than just a single word in the introduction to the Book of Mormon.

Re: #16–what are you talking about? What Hofmann issues?

Carlos,

Your comment re: Hofmann on my blog was made in response to a post by a guest blogger (fh451), so I did not receive an email alerting me to the comment (which I receive for my own posts). fh451ably addressed your question. Thanks for visiting and commenting at my blog.

I have read what FARMS has to say on the subject of DNA. The problem with the FARMS apologetics is that the points they raise in trying to reconcile the DNA science with the Book of Mormon text have the unintended consequence of contradicting the plain language of the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures, as well as the clear unambiguous teachings of Mormon prophets from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley on the subject. If the Lehites intermarried 2500 years ago with a much larger indigenous population such that no trace of the Lehite DNA remains detectable in Native American populations today, then that scenario has serious implications for a number of commonly held and taught Mormon beliefs. To say that Native Americans are still “Lamanites” because they had one ancestor 2500 years ago who was a son or grandson of Lehi is ridiculous since virtually every person living on the earth can say the same thing. Let’s put it this way: I am a blue-eyed white guy of principally Scandinavian ancestry. It is also certain that somewhere back in my family tree, I have a sub-Saharan black African ancestor (we all do). Saying the Navajo are Lamanites makes about as much sense as saying that I am an African-American.

Simon Southerton has addressed FARMS’ characterization of the Iceland study:

“John Butler argues that the Lamanites may well have been important ancestors of American Indians but their DNA may have been lost through lineage extinction.12 To illustrate this, Butler draws on the results of a study carried out on the population of Iceland.13 He claims the study revealed that “the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests.” This observation is incorrect. The scientists had little trouble detecting people’s ancestors. What the Iceland study in fact revealed, by linking DNA genealogies with written genealogies, was that most of the people living in Iceland in the eighteenth century have few or no living descendants. For example, Helgason and his co-workers used Iceland’s extensive genealogical records to determine that 64,150 living female Icelanders were born after 1972 and that there were about 20,443 females born in Iceland between 1698 and 1742. Mitochondrial DNA tests on the living women revealed that 61.8 percent of them are descended from just 6.6 percent of the women living in the early eighteenth century. Similar results were obtained for males.

How could it be that most of the people living in Iceland 300 years ago have few or no living descendants? This remarkably high rate of lineage extinction, or genetic drift, was surprising to the authors of the paper, who considered that Iceland’s population had undergone a rapid population expansion during the last 300 years. This was the only information the authors gave about Iceland’s population history in this paper. There is, however, much in Iceland’s history the authors did not mention.

• For the first century of those 300 years, from 1701 to 1803, Iceland’s population declined from 50,358 to 47,240 due to severe economic hardships.14

• Most of Iceland’s population were farm labourers, and frequently the poor never married or raised families because it was considered improper for labourers to “fill the earth with ‘weaklings’”.15

• In 1783 one of the largest volcanic eruptions in the last 12,000 years rocked Iceland. Mount Laki erupted, killing tens of thousands of cattle and horses and hundreds of thousands of sheep. Between a quarter and a third of the population perished due to fluorine poisoning and smallpox.

• Between 1870 and 1914, 20 percent of Iceland’s population emigrated to North America. Since 1914, emigrants have typically outnumbered immigrants. Emigrant groups are likely to have been dominated by younger individuals of reproductive age.

The combination of drastic population declines in the eighteenth century due to harsh environmental and economic conditions, followed by large-scale emigration during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, will have had a dramatic impact on the genetic landscape of Iceland. Many of the descendants of the 50,358 people living in Iceland in 1701 are likely to have died without leaving offspring. Of those who did leave descendants, many may have migrated to North America, their descendants now invisible in the Icelandic studies.

Iceland has always been a marginal place for human occupation with its arctic climate and volcanic activity, in contrast to the Promised Land of the Book of Mormon where crops thrived and wildlife and precious metals were found in abundance (1 Ne. 18:24-25). There are also few similarities between the population history of Iceland and the history of the Lehites and Mulekites described in the Book of Mormon. Nephi saw a vision of the New World in about 600 BC in which he saw that his “seed” and “the seed of [his] brethren” had multiplied until they did “number as many as the sand of the sea” (1 Ne. 12:1). Numerous passages throughout the Book of Mormon detail the fulfilment of this prophecy. In 588 BC the Lehite populations were prospering “exceedingly” and “multiplying” in the land (2 Ne. 5:13), and by 399 BC they had “multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land” (Jarom 1:8). When the descendants of Mulek join the Nephites, we are informed, they are “exceedingly numerous” (Omni 1:17). By about 124 BC, there were so many people in the Book of Mormon civilizations, they could not number them because they had “multiplied exceedingly and waxed great in the land” (Mosiah 2:2). By about 46 BC, they had spread until they “covered the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east (Hel. 3:8).

Another question the Icelandic research poses is, given such dramatic extinctions in a population over 300 years, does this necessarily lead to extinctions of DNA lineage families? The table below shows the frequency of the major maternal lineage classes in contemporary Icelanders and the frequency at which they appear in the population they descend from 300 years earlier, as determined from Table 9 in the Helgason study.

Frequency in population (%)
Maternal
Lineage

~ 1700 AD

~ 2000 AD

H
33 45
T 9 11
J 10 15
K 10 9
I 2 5
U5 5 7
U4 2 5
V 2 2
X 1 2

While there are changes in the frequencies of the lineages, it is clear that these have not resulted in extinctions. Even the rare lineages were detectable in the living population. While individual DNA lineages can and do go extinct, the DNA lineage families they belong to generally don’t go extinct in a population unless the particular lineage has reduced fitness (for more on this, click here). The authors of the Iceland research observed that the changes in frequency appeared to be random fluctuations and not connected to the fitness of particular lineages.”

Clark, it sounds like you are saying that the Book of Mormon may have been written and conveyed to the world through Joseph Smith’s own experiences and understanding. That is not an unreasonable understanding of a normal translation process. But I am confused, because an Apostle has instructed us otherwise. Russell M. Nelson, in a July 1993 article in the Ensign, wrote this:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)

That doesn’t sound like Brigham Young would have given us a different version of the Book of Mormon. It sounds like anyone who had this same gift would transmit the exact same book, including the same words and phrases. To claim otherwise is to call David Whitmer and Russell M. Nelson liars. Is that what you are doing?

Incidentally, this is exactly what Equality is talking about. Apologists like Clark deny the teachings of Apostles in order to defend their position. You can play duelling quotes between Brigham Young and Russell M. Nelson if you want, but my understanding is that Brigham Young was a convert to the church long after the Book of Mormon was produced, and as such, I’ll believe the claims of David Whitmer over Brigham Young in this matter.

“too much writing.” Reminds me of the king’s criticism of Mozart’s symphony in the movie Amadeus: “too many notes.”

You point to a wiki article written (or edited) by Mormon apologists as your “case-closing” evidence to support your position? Stick with the warm fuzzies–it’s more persuasive.

Nathan, I don’t see any contradiction between the two. The fact the translation made use of Joseph Smith, his mind, and his environment says little about the “aids” in how this was revealed to him.

BTW – can I say how much it bugs me when folks make an interpretation of events, assume it is the only possible interpretation, and then say “apologists like Clark” are denying the teachings of apostles. Give me a break.

Why is it that so many critics can’t wrap their minds around the fact not everyone interprets things the way they do? I swear, it’s sometimes like a kid unable to accept that people can see the same evidence and get differing views of its meaning.

Equality, certainly there have been some dogmatic GAs. (McConkie comes to mind) However even there they aren’t saying there’s only one valid interpretation. They are saying there’s only one authorized or official one. (And, I think them wrong – and certainly their contemporaries disagreed with their views)

Note that this isn’t what I’m disagreeing with. For instance I can say the interpretation that there were real Nephites is the only official one in the Church. But I’d never say this is the only rational one and then base arguments on it. That’s an important distinction.

I will not even argue with these devil’s positions. Equality’s obvious talking-points line of questioning is pathetic. Your debate tactics follow this pattern: My skewed interpretation of whatever is blah, blah is wrong, therfore whatever is wrong.
There is a whole episode in the Book of Mormon that deals with a debate between Zeezrom, a fast-talking lawyer, and the prophet Alma and Amulek. Your pattern of argumentation is the same as Zeezrom’s. You seek to trap and make a person an offender for words.
Your DNA argument is just stupid. It has never been made by any serious generists, because no serious generisist would make the argument that a single genetic line would be evident in a multi-origin population over 2600 years. No generisist would make the claim that genetic heritage equals geneological heritage as they are dogs and cats. One is the prevelance of dominant and recessive genes as well as higher numbers of one versus another. Geneology, though starting with the same root word, is totally different, having only to do with a single origin that may or may not be diluted by combination with later origins. Geneology and genetics are not the same, and pretending that they are is an attempt in argumentational entrapment.
“Oh thou child of hell…” was Amulek’s rebuke to Zeezrom as he caught him in his deceptive tactics. I don’t know you, but you are the same as Zeezrom with your persistence in using the devil’s means to accomplish your ends. You are like the hypocrites that forge documents and lie to enter our temples to “expose” what goes on there. You try show me the evil origins of my religion with your evil means.
The same goes for the ridiculous reasoning about Brigham Young’s hypothetical translation of the Book of Mormon being different than that of Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith, who is the origin of any relation of how the BOM was translated said repeatedly that the seer stones used in the process were only to aid his mind in forming the translations that came through him. The BOM is a work of ransoation and has never been called a dictatio from the various seer stones. JS even said that he didn’t need them anymore in the end of the translaion work. You have to ignore all of this in order to make the point you made. Now, for pointing out your deceptive argumtation, I am an apologist. If that is an apologist than so I am. It is better than a child of hell.

A bit of confusion here. Mormons claim to be Christian yet on the topic of same-sex marriage, the participants of this podcast do not view Christ’s teachings as authoritative. Secondly, why would a parent rather have their child follow something that provides “peace and happiness” rather than something that is true?