New Church History Essay on Evolution

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng

There are two sets of essays now, Church History Topics and Gospel Topics.  I have been always been going straight to topics, so didn’t register the organizational or name change, so I don’t know when it happened, but it looks like they started a section called Church History Topics back in 2017, which sounds right because it was 2015 when I started taking care of my mom that I stopped paying attention to pretty much anything unless it came up on this board, lol.  I was really excited when I saw them first putting up church history stuff more than just Fullness of Times text awhile back and was reading everything they had, which was additional background stories about people (I think it was called recommended readings in church history and was accessed through the church history library)…but that didn’t last that long due to life. And they snuck this in on me. I am very embarrassed. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Calm

[InCognitus]

That's a good summary of the historical issues, and it does a nice job of implying (although not overtly stating) that we are open to the idea of evolution.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That's a good summary of the historical issues, and it does a nice job of implying (although not overtly stating) that we are open to the idea of evolution.

I was wishing for a little more explicitness, but I am glad to see they made it clear diverse positions were allowed. 

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was wishing for a little more explicitness, but I am glad to see they made it clear diverse positions were allowed. 

I agree, but I think they are walking a thin line so as not to offend a lot of people who follow the Joseph Fielding Smith opinion on the topic (I know several, and have seen it on this board too).

Edited June 15, 2022 by InCognitus

[Emily]

I think the gist is, the subject is completely unrelated to the mission of the church, so accept the philosophical meanderings of monks from the Middle Ages, or accept what modern studies on DNA have to say on the topic, but don't argue about it at church. 🤫

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Emily

[filovirus]

The biggest clash that evolution has with church doctrine is the "no death before the fall" teaching. This is where people get hung up.

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, filovirus said:

The biggest clash that evolution has with church doctrine is the "no death before the fall" teaching. This is where people get hung up.

Depends on who's fall is being talked about.  If the account of the fall is (as OGHoosier speculates in this post here) a ceremonial script putting each of us in the place of Adam and Eve, we all participate in "The Fall", and there was no death before we fell.  We all chose to be here in the Council in Heaven.

[The_Monk]

These Church History topics are written to accompany Saints, and they're referred to and linked in the Saints footnotes. 

Also, I wrote up some notes on this. http://benspackman.com/2022/06/an-annotated-version-of-the-new-church-history-evolution-topic/ 

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I agree, but I think they are walking a thin line so as not to offend a lot of people who follow the Joseph Fielding Smith opinion on the topic (I know several, and have seen it on this board too).

Exactly.  Not saying it is a bad thing either.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Calm

[Emily]

When I got questions about this while teaching, my answer was always, "This is a 'Render Unto Ceasar' question and needs to be treated as such."

Evolution, DNA, Taxonomy and all the research performed to figure out the origin, nature and functioning of the human body - that "Natural Man" (which incidentally is an enemy to God in it's unfettered state) belongs to Science. 

The origin of our soul, our immortal nature and the future of the mortal body, made immortal and under the control of our spirit, belongs to God. 

Under the circumstances, I'm not sure why anyone expects the Church to be more explicit.

I do think it's pertinent to point out that we have four to six versions of the "Fall" story in scriptures alone (depending on how complete you want the version to be to "count" as a version. And that's just what I can recall off the top of my head). I have no idea how many "versions" there are from this dispensations temple ceremonies. Much less all the, I'm sure, equally sacred ceremonies held in Jewish and New World temples in the past. If you were going to use the Genesis story as a source of scientific information, you'd be hard pressed to decide which one has more authority to determine what "really" happened in the Garden of Eve. 

Best to render under science that which belongs to science, and to God, that which is God's.

 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

16 hours ago, Emily said:

I think the gist is, the subject is completely unrelated to the mission of the church, so accept the philosophical meanderings of monks from the Middle Ages, or accept what modern studies on DNA have to say on the topic, but don't argue about it at church. 🤫

 

 

Don’t forget a monk is the father of modern genetics 😉

[MrShorty]

It looks like a good essay that covers the ideas rather well. At some level, though, I still find myself underwhelmed. I think it is because the essay, while technically correct even when it highlights that there have been disagreements even at the highest levels, it fails to capture just how contentious this issue has been. Even in very recent years, debates over evolution have seemed to me to be among our most contentious debates (right up there with BoM geography debates).

[Emily]

On 6/16/2022 at 10:47 AM, MiserereNobis said:

Don’t forget a monk is the father of modern genetics 😉

Well I wasn't knocking monks. Many of them were very deep thinkers. But even the best thinkers rarely extend themselves beyond the data available to them, and the culture from within which they are interpreting the data. 

Mendel was an abbot from the 1800s, not a monk from the Middle Ages (and I really love the alliteration going on there 😁). He had a degree in mathematics and the scientific method to work with, hence his ability to analyze his garden systematically and mathematically.

St. Augustine and other "young Earth" believers had fine minds, but the only data on the age of the Earth they had, or chose, to work with was the much copied manuscripts of the Old Testament. Ditto for John Lightfoot, James Ussher (1600s) and others who worked out 7,000 year calendars based on geneological lists and patriarchal ages in the Bible.

The main problem with those calendars is that even if the ages given to the patriarchs in the post-Babylonian "restoration" of the Old Testament manuscripts were correct (and I've got my doubts on that), a lot of assumptions are made about the Biblical text that were derived from the popular beliefs and culture of these men, and not from the text itself. 

We have access to more data now about the age of the Earth, the origin of the human species and the nature of our bodies and brains. It doesn't make sense to ignore the data, even if it runs counter to our preconceived notions. Where would the church be now if the early Saints had all said, "Wait a minute here. The Bible doesn't contain a single word about Nephites. So that's a bunch of bull."?

One of my most deeply spiritual moments came from placing my hand against a wall of plexiglass with a young orangutan on the other side placing his hand near mine right before he flipped around and ran back to his mother. He leaped into her arms with all the self-assurance of any human child that she would welcome him with a hug. At that moment, I realized I had no problem at all being genetically tied to that loving pair, or any other creature on this Earth, from which came the "dust" (minerals, molecules, DNA - whatever you wish to call it) of which we are made.

God may work in mysterious ways, but quite frankly, I see no reason for the ways to remain mysterious.  God will still be God even if we manage to get a peek under the hood of the car occasionally.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Emily

[Emily]

On 6/16/2022 at 11:55 AM, MrShorty said:

Even in very recent years, debates over evolution have seemed to me to be among our most contentious debates (right up there with BoM geography debates).

I've heard some contentious BoM geography debates but it was generally between competing tour groups in the early 2000s. 🙄 

I do have this nasty suspicion that for some North American members, the BoM needs "Made in America" stamped on it (with stars and stripes) to believe it's true. I'd be curious to know if any members who are not North Americans have a knee jerk preference for the "Heartland" theory. Like, do members in South America and Mexico prefer the Meso-American theory? Or do some of them support the Heartland theory as well? (There's gotta be a good sociology thesis in that question.)

But I haven't really heard much contention on evolution. I know some members still reject evolution, but with the exception of the occasional old geezer who is still fighting the battles of the fifties in Gospel Doctrine, the topic just never comes up at church. Are battles being fought on social media or something? 

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, Emily said:

I've heard some contentious BoM geography debates but it was generally between competing tour groups in the early 2000s. 🙄 

I do have this nasty suspicion that for some North American members, the BoM needs "Made in America" stamped on it (with stars and stripes) to believe it's true. I'd be curious to know if any members who are not North Americans have a knee jerk preference for the "Heartland" theory. Like, do members in South America and Mexico prefer the Meso-American theory? Or do some of them support the Heartland theory as well? (There's gotta be a good sociology thesis in that question.)

But I haven't really heard much contention on evolution. I know some members still reject evolution, but with the exception of the occasional old geezer who is still fighting the battles of the fifties in Gospel Doctrine, the topic just never comes up at church. Are battles being fought on social media or something? 

My wife almost had a panic attack when I told her I thought evolution may be a possibility. She grew up under the impression that evolution was evil and a Saint could not believe. There was about a week where she was concerned I was losing my faith xD

It genuinely was about an intense of an experience as I described haha. We talked a lot about that week and she has overcome her concerns 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Emily said:

I do have this nasty suspicion that for some North American members, the BoM needs "Made in America" stamped on it (with stars and stripes) to believe it's true. I'd be curious to know if any members who are not North Americans have a knee jerk preference for the "Heartland" theory. Like, do members in South America and Mexico prefer the Meso-American theory? Or do some of them support the Heartland theory as well? (There's gotta be a good sociology thesis in that question.)

I think that Church members outside of North America who have a strong view on Book of Mormon geography come down on Heartland/Mesoamerica in about the same numbers proportionately as they do in North America. For me, it was Dr. John Clark's paper on travel distances, topography, and geographical features that sealed it for me in favor of Mesoamerica. If you look up the relevant passages and follow along with his explanation, Mesoamerica (a specific part of Mesoamerica) is the only possible location --- and no North American setting is possible. He makes a very compelling case, based on the details in the Book of Mormon first, and not the other way around (i.e., beginning with a desired outcome, and making the passages fit that). 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=msr

1 hour ago, Emily said:

But I haven't really heard much contention on evolution. I know some members still reject evolution, but with the exception of the occasional old geezer who is still fighting the battles of the fifties in Gospel Doctrine, the topic just never comes up at church. Are battles being fought on social media or something? 

It isn't just geezers fighting the battles of the 1950s in Gospel Doctrine. It depends on whether or not someone brings up the topic --- if the topic doesn't come up, most people don't go out of their way to broach the subject. I still think that most members today lean more anti-evolution than pro-evolution, if they are asked. It just isn't a topic most people go out of their way to bring up. 

[Teancum]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:18 PM, Calm said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng

There are two sets of essays now, Church History Topics and Gospel Topics.  I have been always been going straight to topics, so didn’t register the organizational or name change, so I don’t know when it happened, but it looks like they started a section called Church History Topics back in 2017, which sounds right because it was 2015 when I started taking care of my mom that I stopped paying attention to pretty much anything unless it came up on this board, lol.  I was really excited when I saw them first putting up church history stuff more than just Fullness of Times text awhile back and was reading everything they had, which was additional background stories about people (I think it was called recommended readings in church history and was accessed through the church history library)…but that didn’t last that long due to life. And they snuck this in on me. I am very embarrassed. 

It seems to take the similar and historic non position.  

[Emily]

10 hours ago, Fether said:

My wife almost had a panic attack when I told her I thought evolution may be a possibility. She grew up under the impression that evolution was evil and a Saint could not believe. 

My father is a geneticist and a faithful member, so I grew up in an environment where science and faith were not in conflict. It wasn't until High School that I started hearing anti-science sentiments from Seminary teachers and other youth. Up to that point I hadn't questioned the age of the earth and evolution as taught in science classes because I didn't know there were questions. About that same time, I read the multi-volume "Thousand Year" series by Skousen and gave serious thought to chucking the church. I am simply not capable of ignoring physical evidence to the extent that Skousen and others would require for belief in their theories. Nor could I just ignore entire fields of study on the subjects since my main interest in school was biology.

I was fortunate to find a book by Henry Eyring (I think it was called, "Faith of a Scientist") and an article titled "Before Adam" by Hugh Nibley that convinced me there was room for science in the church. 

To my relief, I haven't heard much anti-evolution rhetoric in the last couple of decades, but that may just be where I lived, or maybe people just don't talk about it around me. 

I am glad there's an article up to suppress any lingering doubts on the subject. The church is not anti-evolution. All done. No need to ever debate the subject again.

 

[MrShorty]

11 hours ago, Emily said:

But I haven't really heard much contention on evolution.

The worst of the debates do occur on the internet (forums like this one and other social media platforms). Even MDDB, if you search through the history, has several multi-page discussion threads dedicated to evolution.

11 hours ago, Emily said:

I've heard some contentious BoM geography debates but it was generally between competing tour groups in the early 2000s.

BoM geography is another one of those highly contentious issues. The common thread that I see between the two issues is the question of whether or not prophets/apostles can make mistakes. The worst of the BoM geography debates seem fueled by "the prophet Joseph or other apostle said something was a remnant of Nephite civilization" so anyone who rejects their BoM geography model is rejecting the prophet and the restoration. With evolution, some latch onto statement made by certain apostles (Elders McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith often figure prominently), and anyone who rejects those few statements is rejecting their apostleship, the scriptures, and the gospel.

[MikeFoxtrot]

If a person is searching for truth, the scientific method seems to be one of the best means to that end. Any non-expert who shies away from the scientific consensus is probably defending an untenable position, but I could be wrong. 

[rongo]

58 minutes ago, Emily said:

I was fortunate to find a book by Henry Eyring (I think it was called, "Faith of a Scientist") 

I think Hal Eyring wrote two books: Reflections of a Scientist, and Faith of a Scientist. I enjoyed reading them,but one disappointment was when he shared a conversation he had with President Fielding Smith when he served as general Sunday School president. President Smith had asked him how he explained the passage in the Book of Moses that says that Adam was "the first flesh, the first man also." He simply ended the chapter without saying what or how he answered (or if he answered). 

Very disappointing! I wanted to know what he said, and I wondered why he ended the chapter without saying.

Edited June 19, 2022 by rongo

[MikeFoxtrot]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I enjoyed reading them,but one disappointment was when he shared a conversation he had with President Fielding Smith when he served as general Sunday School president. President Smith had asked him how he explained the passage in the Book of Moses that says that Adam was "the first flesh, the first man also." He simply ended the chapter without saying what or how he answered (or if he answered).

How do you reconcile this problem?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

How do you reconcile this problem?

I side with scriptural literalists, like Smith and McConkie, when it comes to human geography, etc. But, I read a lot of science, and I would still have loved to have read Eyring's response. I think it would have been that the literal interpretation is just wrong, but it's interesting that he didn't touch that in his book dealing mainly with reconciliation between science and faith.

[manol]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

President Smith had asked him how he explained the passage in the Book of Moses that says that Adam was "the first flesh, the first man also." He simply ended the chapter without saying what or how he answered (or if he answered).

Perhaps he was in a situation where the best answer was to give no answer, as presumably he did not want to put himself in the position of directly disagreeing with President Smith and the scripture that he quoted. 

Personally I do not think that a primary role of scripture is to convey scientific information.  I disagree with President Smith and with the Book of Moses in this case, but doing so to President Smith's face would have gotten Eyring and his book in deep trouble.

 

[Duncan]

I just wonder, honestly, how much about evolution did Pres. Smith and Elder McConkie, did they ever study it to any real degree? if not who cares what they think about it? I'd take someone like Dr. Henry Eyring's opinion over theirs.