The implications of key LDS doctrines for evolution
In 1988, Boyd K. Packer presented a paper at BYU about the evolution and the origin of man. [1] I am fully aware that this publication is not an "official declaration." I am also aware that the same is true of all material published privately by individual apostles. But such a distinction makes little or no difference to most Church members, who accept the writings of living apostles as credible gospel teachings. Therefore, ignoring what the apostles publish about evolution will negatively impact an effort to create a place for evolution in the Church. With that in mind, let us consider a few aspects of President Packer's 1988 paper. In this paper, he he sets forth his opinion that an evolutionary origin of man is not only a problem, it is "the problem" [2] He identifies three fundamental doctrines, "the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement" and notes that these "fundamental doctrines cannot co-exist" with the belief that man evolved from lower life. [3] President Packer states rather clearly that the idea of man being the offspring of animals "is false!" [4] And he is certain that theistic evolution, the idea that God used evolution to create man, "is equally false" [5] President Packer asserts that if the theory of evolution applies to man, "there was no Fall and therefore no need for an atonement." [6] And finally, President Packer maintains that human evolution is incompatible with "an understanding of the sealing authority," which he says (twice for emphasis), "cannot admit to ancestral blood lines to beasts." [7] Notes
posted by R. Gary on 3/30/2010 10:08:00 PM
17 Comments:
R. Gary:
I am a fan of how you construct straight-forward arguments, and one cannot fault you for defending the opinions of General Authorities.
If the choices were only two groups, the Apostles or the New Atheists, then I choose this day the Apostles. The new atheism, led by Richard Dawkins, has greatly diminished my hope for an evolutionary informed theology. Dawkins argues that evolution (and science in general) greatly diminishes the probability that God exists.
Yet, I am inspired by scientists like Ken Miller of Brown University (visiting my university in a few weeks), who argues that the essential elements of scientific evolution ARE consistent with Western conceptions of God.
Evolution may be a problem for Mormon theology. You are an effective debater of this point.
But, I do NOT see how the Church advances by arguing that gravity does not exist. If we did so, then there would be a general uprising of discontent. You might agree with me on this point.
Here is my point: In terms of hard scientific published data, there is MORE documentation for the existence of evolutionary change over time than there is for the existence of gravity. Evolution is, quite probably, the strongest scientific fact in the history of science. (I am speaking as a life scientist).
So, I worry how the Church advances in the future, if it takes anti-scientific stances. (Actually, I hope it stays neutral).
Like I have suggested above, if I were faced with a forced choice between Packer and Dawkins, then I would choose Packer. Fortunately, our belief systems do not have to be based upon personalities, other than Jesus.
Jesus is my Savior. And, ... I still believe in evolution, because the rocks tell me so.
S.Faux,
Gotcha! Based on the location of my visitors earlier this morning and Ken Miller's speaking schedue, I have a question for you. Did the Tabernacle Choir perform in the city where you teach last summer?
Okay, I've said this before, but it's true. I wish we were members of the same priesthood quorum. Your comment takes my thoughts back to a retired nuclear physicist who moved into my ward about twenty years ago, where he spent the last ten years of his life. How I loved that man for his knowledge of the gospel and the strength of his convictions. And how I miss our long talks about evolution. It just went on and on because neither of us would give an inch and because we had such a mutual respect for each other's opinion. He was a good, good man and I miss him.
Yes, the MTC did visit my city, and I cannot wait to see the documentary on the MTC midwest tour that will be broadcast between Conference sessions.
To be sure, I cannot harmonize my scientific views with your views. Fortunately, I am not required to do that. Even so, I enjoy debating you on occasion.
But, be sure of one thing. Yes, I would love to have you in my Ward too. We could snicker at each other (but only in a most friendly and cordial manner).
"But such a distinction makes little or no difference to most Church members, who accept the writings of living apostles as credible gospel teachings."
That's the problem, right there.
Clean Cut,
It sounds like Boyd K. Packer might be to you what Joseph Fielding Smith was to Henry Eyring (1901–1981), father of our current President Eyring. Smith held the same position during the 1950s that Packer holds now and Eyring didn't agree with Smith on evolution.
You'll remember that Brother Eyring once met with President Smith regarding Smith's book, Man, His Origin and Destiny. I like what Brother Eyring said 20 years later about that famous conversation:
"I would say that I sustained Brother Smith as my Church leader one hundred percent. I think he was a great man. He had a different background and training on this issue. Maybe he was right. I think he was right on most things and if you followed him, he would get you into the Celestial Kingdom—maybe the hard way, but he would get you there." (as quoted by Edward W. Kimball in Dialogue 8 [Autumn-Winter 1973], pp.102-103.)
What's so uncanny about that comment (which I would agree with, R. Gary) is that I am currently reading Henry Eyring's "Reflections of a Scientist", which I've borrowed from a friend in my ward. Henry Eyring is probably one of my new favorite Mormons. In fact, I was just about (still am) ready to post about that book on my own blog.
I think the way he diplomatically disagrees with Joseph Fielding Smith is fantastic.
Gary, this statement by Boyd K. Packer prefaces the talk you quote from:
" Disclaimer:
Only the Standard Works and statements written under assignment of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles are considered official declarations by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The talk which follows was given without such assignment and no such approval has been sought or given. The author alone is responsible for the views set forth therein. They do not necessarily represent the Church.
The article may not be reproduced in whole or in part without written permission from the author. B.K.P ."
It's odd that you would try and argue what he himself denies. Is this what you mean by following the prophets? This take on evolution is his opinion and I'm under no obligation to buy into it. In your so doing you seem to be ignoring the most important part of his disclaimer, that the source matters. You do a disservice when you try to establish as doctrine what he explicitly does not. I will follow him by not ignoring the words of his disclaimer.
SteveP,
1. Regarding "official declaration," the following is from the first paragraph of my post:
-------------- quote --------------
"I am fully aware that this publication is not an 'official declaration.' I am also aware that the same is true of all material published privately by individual apostles."
-------------- end quote --------------
Therefore, I did NOT "argue what he himself denies." I purposefully emphasized his denial of it.
2. As for "opinion." The fourth paragraph of my post plainly states that "he sets forth his opinion." Again, I emphasized it's his "opinion." Therefore, I obviously agree that you are "under no obligation to buy into it."
My concern, however, (as stated in the second paragraph of my post) is that the distinction between official declaration and opinion "makes little or no difference to most Church members, who accept the writings of living apostles as credible gospel teachings."
So if you truly want to "create a place for evolution in the Church" (third paragraph above) simply ignoring his opinion might not be the most helpful approach.
3. As for "doctrine," my title borrows the word once from the title of your current post (because my title is a parody of your title). Then, it is Packer himself who uses the phrase "fundamental doctrines" twice in one paragraph. It's still his opinion, obviously. But also his words, not mine.
And that means your assertion about my post trying "to establish as doctrine what he explicitly does not" fails miserably because I'm just quoting him.
One more thing, Steve. I am very glad to hear from you. Stop by again.
My concern, however, (as stated in the second paragraph of my post) is that the distinction between official declaration and opinion "makes little or no difference to most Church members, who accept the writings of living apostles as credible gospel teachings."
So if you truly want to "create a place for evolution in the Church" (third paragraph above) simply ignoring his opinion might not be the most helpful approach.
Actually, I'd say that given that most members make no distinction between the opinion of an apostle and official gospel teachings, the worst way to create a place for evolution in the Church is by engaging an opinion of an apostle that doesn't accept evolution. How could that result in anything BUT being taken as hubris and dismissed off-hand on the basis the apostles authority?
If more members made that distinction, there would be less of a perceived threat when someone disagreed with an opinion of an apostle. In that case directly engaging Packer's comments might be a way of creating a place for evolution in the Church.
My sense is that this post is an attempt to get Peck to directly disagree with an apostle beyond simply acknowledging Packer's statement as his personal opinion.
SmallAxe,
Thanks for your comment.
FYI, I have already posted some advice for Steve (click here) regarding the "perceived threat when someone disagreed with an opinion of an apostle."
Wow. I enjoyed that post. Doesn't it, however, contradict what you're trying to get Steven to do? I.e., make the disagreement public? You're advice was not to publicly criticize an apostle, but aren't you recommending that he do just that in order to make room for evolution in the Church?
SmallAxe, I've posted my response here.
Let’s all earnestly pray for the health of Pres Monson.
Steve EM, I'm with you on that one, but not just to keep Packer where he is.
R. Gary, thank you for that; especially for taking the time to drum that stuff up. You certainly don't lose any battles in terms of tenacity.
I wonder, though, if "making room for position x" in the Church is not better done through other means. Your method was very much one of trying to influence the top. Perhaps a bottom-up approach could be more beneficial. Even in your case the Salt Lake Tribune, which is perhaps closer to a bottom-up effort, became an essential part.
IMO, these kinds of situations (making an argument for evolution) are best handled by refraining from telling the Church how it should operate. Such an endeavor should be treated as an intellectual endeavor where the argument one makes is "I can be a faithful Mormon and still believe in evolution. Here's how I do it"; and not by directly telling the Church to make room. This kind of endeavor should take into account authoritative statements of people in the Church, but must deal with them very tactfully. And not in a way that makes it appear as if they're going to toe-to-toe with an apostle.
I don't know SteveP very well, but my sense is that his goal is not to have the Church officially acknowledge or accept his position. Instead it's more along the lines of having other members recognize that a Mormon can hold his views and be a faithful Mormon; and perhaps have other members be aware of the insights his position provides on the gospel.
SmallAxe,
First, let me say that I do not have a vested interest in opposing evolution. In fact, I don't care what people believe about evolution. My vested interest is in discovering and following what the apostles and prophets are saying, directly and through the publications they approve.
That said, let's now imagine that, because I find out he's my brother-in-law's third cousin's nephew, SteveP and I are related somehow and so I decide to throw all of my support behind him. Whatever helps make a place for evolution in the Church is my new gospel hobby.
When I think about helping SteveP, I begin wondering how we attack from the bottom up. How would that work?
I understand your suggested argument: "I can be a faithful Mormon and still believe in evolution. Here's how I do it." But it's not that easy.
1. To whom specifically do we make that argument? Neighbors? Ward members? Work associates? In SteveP's case, students?
2. How do we keep Packer statements out of the conversation?
3. What do we say when a Packer statement slips in? Do we say, "Yeah, I know. But don't pay any attention to him." How far is that going to get us?
For me, these would be serious questions. Remember, we're not just arguing that evolution is true as gravity, we're making a place for it "in the Church."
Steve EM said, "So are we sure [Packer] still holds the anti-evolution views expressed in that 1988 talk?"
Based on what he said at the BYU Women's Conference on May 5, 2006, the answer is "yes."
Based on what he said in an articled titled, "Who Is Jesus Christ," written for the Church's web site about Jesus Christ and published in the March 2008 Ensign, the answer is "yes."
Click here for quotes and source information.
<< Home