Evolving Mormon Doctrine

[Analytics]

Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.  The two most obvious examples are polygamy and the racial priesthood ban.  Many people think that society will continue to become more and more accepting of same-sex families as a normal, healthy variation of families, leading to more and more tension between mainstream society and the Church.  Several predict this tension will be resolved by the Church updating its position on same-sex families.  Others say this will never happen and anybody who thinks in might doesn’t understand the clear doctrine behind the Church’s current position.

 

I’d like to discuss a counter-argument to this: the theory of evolution.  Apparently, a BYU professor and 84.26% of the participants on this message board think that faithful members of the Church can believe in evolution.  On the one hand, I agree—faithful Mormons can believe anything they want—as long as they pay their tithing, don’t smoke or drink, attend church, and don’t make waves, they can believe pretty-much anything they want about anything and still get a temple recommend.  But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean their beliefs are consistent with doctrine.

 

The doctrinal point in question has been called by Bruce R. McConkie "The Three Pillars of Eternity."  In his own words:

 

The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.

 

If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

 

If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

 

If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_three-pillars-eternity/

 

That’s classic Mormon doctrine and is absolutely central.

 

Here is a quote from the book Straight Answers to Tough Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding McConkie:

 

Q: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?

A: No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.

 

This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.

 

So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Analytics

[jaberwocky]

The least important thing to me is homosexuality and whatever it is those that practice want to do.  Based on what I read in the media I think I may be in the minority.  For some reason it's a constant topic for consumption.

[Analytics]

The least important thing to me is homosexuality and whatever it is those that practice want to do.  Based on what I read in the media I think I may be in the minority.  For some reason it's a constant topic for consumption.

 

I have some great news for you then--this thread isn't about homosexuality---it's about the evolution of Mormon doctrine.

 

This really is something I wonder about.  What is the Plan of Salvation to you, if you believe in both Mormonism and evolution?  Was the Fall just a metaphor?  Was Bruce R. McConkie just confused to think it was literal?  If you pull out the Fall, does the atonement lose its meaning?  It seems that you don't need a literal Atonement to be ransomed from a metaphorical Fall.

 

I'm genuinely curious here.  When I was a believer, I thought that what McConkie teaches above was absolutely central to the gospel.  This is straight out of 2 Nephi 9.  When I was in the MTC, President Ed J. Pinegar said if we wanted to really understand the atonement, we should read that chapter every day for a month.  Taking him up on that, my companion and I cut 15 minutes out of our personal time and read and re-read this chapter every night in the MTC classroom from 9:30 to 9:45 after everybody else was back in the dorm writing in their journals and goofing off.

 

My current understanding is that the Church no longer teaches this--not in the literal, fundamental way that Elder McConkie taught it.

 

Am I correct?  Has the doctrine on this basic point changed?

[JLHPROF]

 

My current understanding is that the Church no longer teaches this--not in the literal, fundamental way that Elder McConkie taught it.

 

Am I correct?  Has the doctrine on this basic point changed?

 

I don't think so.  I think the Church as a whole (individual member beliefs aside) are still creationists.  Literal Adam & Eve, literal creation, literal fall.

Now, there is an increasing number of members who accept evolution and believe the creation to be figurative in some way.

But I think we are still a good way from the Church as a whole changing its doctrine on this.

[Analytics]

I don't think so.  I think the Church as a whole (individual member beliefs aside) are still creationists.  Literal Adam & Eve, literal creation, literal fall.

Now, there is an increasing number of members who accept evolution and believe the creation to be figurative in some way.

But I think we are still a good way from the Church as a whole changing its doctrine on this.

 

Thanks.  Do you think the church puts less emphasis on this now than it used to?

[JLHPROF]

Thanks.  Do you think the church puts less emphasis on this now than it used to?

 

I think the Church puts less emphasis on anything that either makes us seem unusual or that doesn't really impact our immediate salvation.

(Current controversy aside).

[Duncan]

I think the Church today is emphasing? sizing? the atonement but more of the healing, emotional part of it and less about the sin stuff. You may find this interesting

 

https://atonementlibrary.wordpress.com/

Edited November 18, 2015 by Duncan

[BCSpace]

 

So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.

 

The 1909 statement didn't preclude Evolution in any way.  The 1931 statement pretty much confirmed that Evolution is within the realm of doctrinal possibility.

[Rivers]

The 1909 statement didn't preclude Evolution in any way. The 1931 statement pretty much confirmed that Evolution is within the realm of doctrinal possibility.

That statement said called evolution "the theories of men."

[Buckeye]

Good observation analytics. I think the underlying principle is that an evolution of a belief - including evolution itself - can happen in an environment where the church avoids making clear unequivocal statements. A good example would be the church doctrines justifying the racial priesthood ban which have now been renounced. At one point these doctrines were actively taught by the FP and apostles. Then they stopped teaching them - moving to a "we don't know why" to justify the ban. In that vaccuum, many members continued to promulgate the old ideas, but others raised question. Eventually many members stopped believing the ideas. These members were better prepared for the 1978 revelation; they did not need to be told by Elder McConkie "forget everything I or others said" because they'd already evolved to stop believing that. 

[Analytics]

The 1909 statement didn't preclude Evolution in any way.  The 1931 statement pretty much confirmed that Evolution is within the realm of doctrinal possibility.

I'm not talking about any official declarations regarding evolution. I'm talking about the basic, central doctrine of the Three Pillars of Eternity and what they imply about evolution.

[Buckeye]

A new article in the National edition of the Deseret News seems to be on point. While it does not address LDS views on evolution, it traces the conflict between science and other faiths and argues that there need be no conflict and, indeed, that evolution is compatible with faith. Coming from the DN, this seems like a clear signal that the church is no longer promulgating opposition to evolution. Here are a key excerpts from the article:

 

 

Casey Cole wants to be a priest. That means attending five years of seminary classes, where he studies theology, philosophy and — evolution.

...

Preachers may rarely highlight the value of science from their pulpits, but that doesn't mean science and religion are opposed, according to Cole-Turner and others who work at the intersection of the two subjects.

"Scientists help advance human understanding of God's mysterious creation," he said. "What's more elegant than that?"

Historically, many religious leaders have famously viewed science with contempt, such as when Galileo was condemned by the Catholic Church for positing that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Even today, some faith leaders confront science with fear and dismissal, such as when Ken Ham, a prominent Christian speaker and leader of Kentucky's Creation Museum, publicly shames Christians who believe in evolution, said Cole-Turner, who serves as an adviser for the Science for Seminaries project.

...

"Just being able to talk intelligently about these things is important," he said. "When we don't understand something, it's easier to pretend it doesn't exist or dismiss it out of hand."

Cole said he recently drew on his new knowledge of evolutionary biology while meeting with a hospital patient who rejected science because of his personal beliefs.

"I wasn't trying to change his mind or tell him he was wrong. I wanted to give him a broader view of what the world could be," he said.

With science and religion, people shouldn't have to decide where their allegiances lie and then reject the other side, Cole said.

"Why can't there be truth in both?," he asked. "If God created everything, everything created can teach us about God."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865641744/Seminary-curriculum-incorporates-NASA-and-Darwin-with-its-religious-teaching.html?pg=all

Edited November 18, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Here is another timely piece about evolving LDS teachings, this time in regard to church policies with respect to transgendered persons: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/18/continuing-revelation/ As usual, Greg Prince does a first rate job.

[CV75]

Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.

...

 

So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.

Some theories are incompatible and irreconcilable with the three pillars for the purpose of defining the means of exaltation, yet they have other, worthwhile applications in practical day-to-day life, and inasmuch as they are applied, they are believed in for that specific purpose. So it is OK to believe in a theory that may be incompatible and irreconcilable with the three pillars for one (eternal) purpose and yet compatible for another separate non-contending or non-opposing (temporal) purpose.

 

So I do not see the tolerance for belief in the theory of evolution as necessarily an example of evolving doctrine.

 

Belief in making room for same-sex families is already tolerated; apostasy in that regard is not;  same-gender marriage is still incompatible and irreconcilable with the three pillars for exalting purposes.

[jaberwocky]

This will be my last post here.  The moderators have limited my ability to post simply because I asked a question they didn't like.  I refuse to participate in a forum where the moderators are all gay.

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't think so.  I think the Church as a whole (individual member beliefs aside) are still creationists.  Literal Adam & Eve, literal creation, literal fall.

Now, there is an increasing number of members who accept evolution and believe the creation to be figurative in some way.

But I think we are still a good way from the Church as a whole changing its doctrine on this.

JLHPROF is right. The church still teaches these things as literal events.

 

Even so, I believe it is possible to believe these three pillars of eternity as doctrine while rejecting the literal narrative. The narrative is the way the prophets have taught us as a way of understanding the necessity of these three changes in existence but that story doesn't hve to be taken literally.

 

But to answer your main question, I agree that the church changes with time. It always has. It always will. It's only a matter of degree and timing. When you view the church evolution into polygamy as a practice essential for salvation into polygamy as a "grievous sin" and apostacy, we can see that many important things have changed so it stands to reason many more things will continue to change.

[Bobbieaware]

This will be my last post here.  The moderators have limited my ability to post simply because I asked a question they didn't like.  I refuse to participate in a forum where the moderators are all gay.

The key to successful posting on this board is learning how to say what you want to say in diplomatic language. It's also important to avoid the trap of getting personal. Being indirect through the use of circumlocution allows one to say what he or she wants to say without getting reprimanded or disciplined. I hope you'll reconsider and stick around for a while.

[Freedom]

I'm not talking about any official declarations regarding evolution. I'm talking about the basic, central doctrine of the Three Pillars of Eternity and what they imply about evolution.

I am unclear on what 'Three Pillars of Eternity' has to do with mormon doctrine. This article has never been adopted as an official representation of lds doctrine.

[HappyJackWagon]

This will be my last post here.  The moderators have limited my ability to post simply because I asked a question they didn't like.  I refuse to participate in a forum where the moderators are all gay.

I was put on limited as well and I'm not sure why but sometimes we just have to take our lumps for a period of time. It's not the end of the world. But calling moderators gay or being generally rude is not going to get you far on this forum or in life. Best of luck to you.

[Bobbieaware]

JLHPROF is right. The church still teaches these things as literal events.

 

Even so, I believe it is possible to believe these three pillars of eternity as doctrine while rejecting the literal narrative. The narrative is the way the prophets have taught us as a way of understanding the necessity of these three changes in existence but that story doesn't hve to be taken literally.

 

But to answer your main question, I agree that the church changes with time. It always has. It always will. It's only a matter of degree and timing. When you view the church evolution into polygamy as a practice essential for salvation into polygamy as a "grievous sin" and apostacy, we can see that many important things have changed so it stands to reason many more things will continue to change.

In the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Jacob makes it clear polygamy IS a grevious sin and that the law strict monogamy is what God usually commands his people to practice. So there is nothing strange about the members of the Church now being commanded to abide by the standard order of marriage even though for a time in the past plural marriage was permitted. Jacob does go on to teach that on occasion the Lord will command his people to practice plural marriage, but that is the exception and not the rule. The day may come when the Lord will again command his people to practice polygamy but that won't signal a change in doctrine, it will only signal another period of the divinely-mandated practice of plural marriage is again being instituted. It's wishful thinking to conclude that there has been a change in doctrine with regard to polygamy -- there has been none.

[HappyJackWagon]

In the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Jacob makes it clear polygamy IS a grevious sin and that the law strict monogamy is what God usually commands his people to practice. So there is nothing strange about the members of the Church now being commanded to abide by the standard order of marriage even though for a time in the past plural marriage was permitted. Jacob does go on to teach that on occasion the Lord will command his people to practice plural marriage, but that is the exception and not the rule. The day may come when the Lord will again command his people to practice polygamy but that won't signal a change in doctrine, it will only signal another period of the divinely-mandated practice of plural marriage is again being instituted. It's wishful thinking to conclude that there has been a change in doctrine with regard to polygamy -- there has been none.

It would be interesting to see what kind of mass-resignation event would occur should the church reinstate polygamy. I'm hoping that day never comes.

[Gray]

The institution is more tolerant of heterodoxy in some areas than others. I'd say it's very tolerant of heterodoxy when it comes to scientific issues. 

[jaberwocky]

The key to successful posting on this board is learning how to say what you want to say in diplomatic language. It's also important to avoid the trap of getting personal. Being indirect through the use of circumlocution allows one to say what he or she wants to say without getting reprimanded or disciplined. I hope you'll reconsider and stick around for a while.

 

OK - I'll make one more post in reply.  I've never seen such ridiculous moderation of any board.  They're obviously asleep right now or my comment above would be gone by now.

[Deborah]

This issue is the difference between doctrine and practice which apparently a lot of people aren't clear on.

 

Plural marriage was a practice sometimes allowed under the doctrine of eternal marriage and sealing, and is only authorized when under the covenant of eternal marriage.

 

The Priesthood ban is not doctrine but is a practice put in place throughout history depending on the times and people. In ancient times very few were authorized to have the Priesthood. The doctrine has always been that one day all would be eligible to receive it.

[JLHPROF]

This issue is the difference between doctrine and practice which apparently a lot of people aren't clear on.

 

Plural marriage was a practice sometimes allowed under the doctrine of eternal marriage and sealing, and is only authorized when under the covenant of eternal marriage.

 

I don't agree with this at all.