Michael Whiting, BYU, and human evolution
On Saturday, June 16, 2012, the Deseret News published an article titled "Evolution, dinosaurs and faith: Navigating the world of discovery." The article highlights Dr. Michael Whiting's evolutionary biology lab at Brigham Young University. According to the article, Whiting teaches that God uses evolution. As Whiting's lab lets out, the model skulls on every desk are lined up chronologically. Whiting said that although some students have trouble accepting human evolution, the students in his lab typically do not have any problems. He said many of his students come to see evolution not as a theory that threatens their beliefs, but as a tool God uses to "accomplish his design." The article thus suggests there is room in the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for evolution. Speaking of his students, Whiting says:
"They leave the class thinking, 'Isn't this cool? Isn't the creator so clever?'" he said. In truth, however, it is Whiting himself who is "clever." LDS faith is not defined by science, it is defined by apostles and prophets. And for more than 182 years, the apostles and prophets have talked about the origin of man in official settings. The result? Church published apostolic statements about the origin of man speak unanimously against the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: Church published apostolic statements about the origin of man speak unanimously against the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
The remainder of this article is reprinted from an earlier blog post that addresses the question of whether BYU evolution courses constitute an endorsement of evolution by the Church.
Dropped in 1911
Evolution was kicked out of BYU nearly a hundred years ago. President Joseph F. Smith, in an April 1911 Improvement Era editorial, publicly berated three BYU instructors who had "advanced certain theories on evolution as applied to the origin of man." And when their ideas came into conflict with scripture, "it required the modification of the latter to come into harmony with the former." Cancelling BYU evolution courses, President Smith said:
"Teachers in a Church school [should] not be given opportunity to inculcate theories that [are] out of harmony with the recognized doctrines of the Church, and hence that they be required to refrain from so doing" (click here). In 1973, while he was serving as Church President and Chairman of the BYU Board of Trustees, Harold B. Lee summarized the 1911 BYU evolution controversy in these words:
"The doctrine of evolution ... has been long a bone of contention so serious that in the earlier years when Darwin's theory first was enunciated [at BYU], a number of professors ... were released because of their unwillingness to teach the theory and then counter by delivering the true doctrines of the gospel" (click here). And so it was that for sixty years, between 1911 and 1971, evolution courses were not taught at BYU.
Brought back in 1971
To help its students prepare for biology graduate programs at other universities, BYU resumed undergraduate evolution courses in 1971. Harold B. Lee was involved in obtaining the required permission from the Board of Trustees. But, he said, "don't ... beat the Church with it." (See Duane Jeffery interview, Dialogue, Vol. 35, No. 4, Winter 2002, 12.)
This is the same Harold B. Lee who, six months after becoming Church President, expressed sorrow in an Ensign First Presidency Message over a Church member who had asked him about pre-Adamites:
"She wondered about the creation because she had read the theories of the scientists, and the question that she was really asking was: How do you reconcile science with religion? The answer must be, If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error." (Ensign, Dec. 1972, p.2.) This is also the same Harold B. Lee who, just weeks before his death, praised Joseph Fielding Smith's Man, His Origin and Destiny as the finest Church book for science teachers (click here).
It seems pretty clear that President Lee didn't view BYU evolution courses as evidence for Church acceptance of the theory.
Chairman of the Board
In 1971 when the BYU evolution courses returned, Joseph Fielding Smith was Chairman of the school's Board of Trustees. Here is one of President Smith's legendary comments about the theory:
"Today the world ... has adopted and is promulgating in textbooks and schools the debasing doctrine that man is ... a natural development through countless ages from the lowest forms of physical life to his present form and intelligence. Such a doctrine is an insult to our Father in whose Image we were created. [It] is the doctrine of the devil." (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:143-149.) It should be obvious that permission from Joseph Fielding Smith to resume evolution courses was not an endorsement of the theory.
Students warned
President Boyd K. Packer and Elder Russell M. Nelson have each been asked to serve on the BYU Board of Trustees and both have warned BYU students about evolution (previously discussed here and here). President Packer and Elder Nelson clearly don't believe BYU evolution courses connote Church acceptance of the theory.
President Ezra Taft Benson made this suggestion to parents:
"If your children are taught untruths on evolution in the public schools or even in our Church schools, provide them with a copy of President Joseph Fielding Smith's excellent rebuttal in his book Man, His Origin and Destiny." (Era, Dec 1970, p.49.) Elder Bruce R. McConkie warned BYU students that one of today's seven deadly heresies is trying to harmonize organic evolution with revealed religion (click here). "There is no harmony," McConkie consistently taught, "between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution" (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p.256.)
President Benson and Elder McConkie both served on the BYU Board of Trustees, yet it seems quite apparent that neither of them felt BYU evolution courses meant Church acceptance of the theory.
The gospel perspective
Yes, BYU teaches evolution courses. Even so, the BYU Board of Trustees has established the BYU Evolution Packet (click here) which makes clear the Church's position on evolution (click here). In addition, BYU students are required to take religion classes where certain aspects of evolution theory are countered with the gospel perspective (click here, for example).
Conclusion
BYU evolution courses do not supersede the official 1909 First Presidency statement which is the predominant item in the BYU Evolution Packet and has been reprinted in major Church publications twice in this century (click here and here).
The 1909 statement is easily and usually interpreted as anti-evolutionary (click here). Duane Jeffery himself has called it "anti-science" [1] and "quite anti-evolutionary." [2]
For the above reasons, I think BYU evolution courses do not establish compatibility between Church doctrine and evolution, and do not connote Church approval of the theory.
----------
Notes
1. As quoted in William E. Evenson and Duane E. Jeffery, Mormonism and Evolution: The Authoritative LDS Statements, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2005), p. 30.
2. As quoted in Deseret Morning News, March 1, 2006, p. B3.
posted by R. Gary on 6/17/2012 06:10:00 AM
59 Comments:
"BYU students are required to take religion classes where certain aspects of evolution theory are countered with the gospel perspective."
I'm not sure quite what you mean by this, but I want to state for the record that I graduated from BYU and not once had a religion class "where certain aspects of evolution theory are countered with the gospel perspective." I'm aware of one religion professor there who teaches (taught?) such things, but it wasn't in a required course, and he was the exception rather than the rule.
On the other hand, my major required me to take more than one entire course on evolution...
Tim: I respect your perspective and your memory of your BYU experience. However, the following official religion department manuals unequivocally teach that earth's creation was paradisiacal with no mortality and no death for any forms of life until Adam fell.
Religion 121-122, Book of Mormon Student Manual.
Religion 211–212, New Testament Student Manual.
Religion 301, Old Testament Student Manual Genesis–2 Samuel.
Religion 302, Old Testament Student Manual 1 Kings–Malachi.
Religion 324–325, Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual.
Religion 327, Pearl of Great Price Student Manual.
Religion 430– 431, Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.
I think the official manuals probably describe the intended BYU experience better than does your memory of your individual BYU experience.
I never had one professor at BYU use any of those manuals. I would be very surprised if more than a quarter of them do.
I'm so grateful I have the Friend for my science resources.
Anonymous: I believe the manual titles I listed above match the BYU Religion Department course titles, right down to the course numbers. Religion teachers are instructed to stay true to the scriptures, the teachings of the apostles and prophets, and the manual. Based on your comment, your BYU experience was not what it should have been.
Gary, I had a BYU religion professor, today one of the most prominent (highly honored by the Board of Trustees).
He was strong supporter of evolution, human and otherwise. Said when he met with President Hinckley, he was one too.
Gary, you've gone the rounds on this before, IIRC. Those manuals are not for BYU usage (there's a reason they're called the Institute Manuals), and professors are not instructed to use them, teach from them, recommend them, etc.
You simply have no knowledge of how things are supposed to function in the RelEd department.
I hate to be a contrarian, but I can't imagine where we would be in terms of scientific understanding and such vital areas of knowledge as medicine without an undertstanding of evolutionary theory. I am personally grateful that we are training future LDS scientists and doctors at BYU who are, have been, and will continue to be making enormous contributions to the temporal welfare of human beings. I can only assume that the very fact that BYU teaches this theory means that regardless of what the bretheren say in some forums, they are not the least bit uncomfortable allowing this to be taught at BYU. I get the feeling that some people would like to view this as going rogue, but I can assure you that that does not happen at BYU, or if it does, it does not happen for very long.
I consider myself to be a very devout member of the church. I go to church every Sunday, I read my scriptures daily, I do my best to keep all of the commandments, etc. But I must say, posts like these are ones that cause me to lose a bit of my testimony.
I have never had doubts about the truthfulness of the gospel after hearing a lecture or reading a post or a book in support of evolution, but when I read things like this post, it makes me really start to wonder if I'm following people with sound understanding of "things as they really are".
In my mind, I know that evolution is true, and I'm ok with that. I'm even ok with it when others who are members of the church think it is absolutely false. No big deal. But when people like you try to force me to choose between the church and my understanding of the truthfulness of the world around us, that brings the spirit of contention into my own mind.
I understand your mission R. Gary, but why oh why can't we just both agree that we view man's origin differently, and live peacefully, rather than you trying to push me out of the church?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints maintains that education is not complete without the study of religion. For this reason, BYU students are required to take religion classes and where other universities don't provide LDS religion classes, Institutes of Religion are made available adjacent to those campuses. In this way, the study of religion is made accessible to all LDS college students, as nearly as possible.
BYU religion courses and Institute of religion classes are similar — so similar, in fact, that courses taken from an Institute of Religion, or even from a Stake Institute, count as religion “core” credit at BYU.
All of this is beside the point that LDS faith is not defined by science, it is defined by apostles and prophets, and Church published apostolic statements about the origin of man speak unanimously against the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
Church teachings are found in the scriptures, Church published teachings of the apostles and prophets, and in Church manuals. That includes manuals published for the use of college students. What this or that teacher does with the manual has no bearing on what the Church teaches.
Gary,
You can actually look up what books are required in each class at the BYU Bookstore website.
You might be surprised--most sections of courses such as Rel. 121 don't require the manuals.
Even in those that do, my experience was that they were merely a resource, and weren't studied in any depth.
So no, the official manuals do not describe the intended BYU experience at all.
Tim: I see a difference between a manual being the prescribed text for a class and it being a required purchase when taking the class. I think it is also possible to confuse the two.
Please try to speak of principles rather than personalities. I think you know what I'm talking about.
When you see someone attack the Church's newspaper for a story on what is being taught at the Church's university, it makes you wonder who they think is running the Church.
Elder Oaks words may be relevant here:
"In a memorable message given at the 1971 October conference, Elder Boyd K. Packer likened the fulness of the gospel to a piano keyboard. He reminded us that a person could be "attracted by a single key," such as a doctrine they want to hear "played over and over again." He explained:
Some members of the Church who should know better pick out a hobby key or two and tap them incessantly, to the irritation of those around them. They can dull their own spiritual sensitivities. They lose track that there is a fulness of the gospel, . . . [which they reject] in preference to a favorite note. This becomes exaggerated and distorted, leading them away into apostasy. [Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1975), p. 44]
We could say of such persons, as the Lord said of the members of the Shaker sect in a revelation given in 1831, "Behold, I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all" (D&C 49:2). And so, I say, beware of a hobby key. If you tap one key to the exclusion or serious detriment of the full harmony of the gospel keyboard, Satan can use your strength to bring you down."
Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall BYU Speechs 1972
SteveP: I am now completely convinced that hit pigeons really do flutter!
Here is where I stand: BYU evolutionists can teach human evolution as science and I don't care, it doesn't bother me in the least.
But when human evolution is claimed to be compatible with the teachings of LDS apostles and prophets, then I care. That's when it bothers me, because Church published statements from the apostles and prophets about human evolution speak unanimously against it.
When one of my fellow Church members like Michael Whiting publicly contradicts the apostles and prophets and misrepresents them, that is where I feel justified in drawing the line. That is when, for me, a battle begins. And "where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point." (Martin Luther.)
I believe my high priests group leader, bishop, and stake president would all take issue with your comment, as do I. But thanks for sharing and come back anytime.
R. Gary,
As someone who has actually taught Religion at BYU, I never used those manuals in my class as anything other than a means for spacing out readings (and even then minimally). I was never encouraged to use them, nor was I ever told anything about how to teach the Gospel. I had several BYU RelEd long-timers come visit my courses (I was desperate for feedback), and no one ever even mentioned my not using the manuals. Perhaps things have changed in the interim (I taught there from 2004-2006), but those manuals have only gotten older, so I doubt it.
.
Anonymous: It's clear to me that you do NOT understand my mission, which is to help disabuse the public mind and correct misinformation about the Church. I'm confident that we can and should "just both agree that we view man's origin differently, and live peacefully" as long as we can also agree that Church published statements from the apostles and prophets about human evolution speak unanimously against it. And even on that point, it's fine with me if you want to disagree privately with that fact, but as a scientist you don't usually disagree with facts do you!
.
John C.: The manuals exist independent of how you used or didn't use them. Did you claim authority to teach that the manuals are wrong?
Gary,
You stated,
"I think the official manuals probably describe the intended BYU experience better than does your memory of your individual BYU experience."
Yet you have provided no evidence whatsoever of your side of the "intended BYU experience," while several people, all more familiar with how religion classes at BYU work, have stated that those manuals aren't used much, if at all.
R. Gary,
Exactly. I don't disagree with facts. I accept that most of the opinions coming from the bretheren, and even the official church statements have been anti-evolution. I accept that those statements were made as fact. However, I do not accept as fact that evolution does not occur.
On that point, I "agree that [the bretheren and I] view man's origin differently," and I have no problem with that.
.
Anonymous: So what's the problem?
As long as you don't represent otherwise, you can say that as long and as loud as you wish and I won't complain.
.
Tim: The manuals were prepared with the intent that they be used. The First Presidency and Twelve have stated very clearly (in Handbook 2) that there should be a worldwide uniformity in the doctrine that is taught. I believe that means the same doctrine should be taught to college students whether they attend BYU or other universities. That is what is intended.
Gary -- please read this comment as respectully as it is intended -- I am certain that the department chair, the BYU administration, and president have a much better idea of what the board of trustees and the brethren intend for religious education at BYU than you do. I can only assume that the brethren are aware of the current (lack of) use of the manuals and are perfectly okay with it. Do you claim the authority to correct them?
Otherwise, from what you have written here, I can only assume that you think that they are deliberately acting against the will of the brethren and have been for some time. Are you accusing the religious studies department of apostasy?
R.Gary,
I didn't say anything about the quality of the manuals have (aside from their age) in my comment, nor did I ever teach that they were. I said that they were irrelevant to my teaching experience. Say what you will about BYU RelEd, they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to discern the intent of the Brethren and to apply it in their teaching. In fact, they often meet with the Brethren and ask specifically about that. So, if they don't particularly emphasize the importance of these manuals, they may actually not be all that important.
All of which is beside the point to your original point; please continue to defame and malign those who intend you and the church no harm. You provide a service of a sort.
If you travel South on I-15 from Provo, you eventually come to San Diego, where not too long ago sportswriter Nick Canepa said, "arrogance has a way of blurring vision, and The Y, arrogant beyond description, sees itself a TV star, becoming Notre Dame West. Except there is no ... Touchdown Jesus in Provo."
Two years ago, I disagreed with Canepa. But today you two guys (Anon and John) have pushed me temporarily in the other direction.
I've been to the BYU campus many times in my life. Three of my sons graduated from BYU. And I can assure the world that BYU rests on the same terra firma as other universities. BYU is not exempt from the laws of the land and BYU is not exempt from the laws of God.
The First Presidency and Twelve have stated very clearly (in Handbook 2) that there should be a worldwide uniformity in the doctrine that is taught. That means the same doctrine should be taught to college students who attend BYU that is taught to college students who attend other universities.
The apostles and prophets have not granted BYU RelEd an exception. They have not authorized BYU RelEd to teach a different or higher religion. The gospel is the same in all parts of the world. Of that I am sure.
No one is going to take issue with your last paragraph. It's your equating the manuals with the gospel (which seems to be a theme of yours).
LDS college students worldwide (350,000 of them) study the Book of Mormon using a manual published by the Church and titled "Religion 121-122, Book of Mormon Student Manual." When 31,000 students at BYU take Religion 121 or 122 but don't use the manual, what do they learn? How do the teachings compare using the manual versus not using it?
Question: "Are you accusing the religious studies department of apostasy?"
Answer: No.
Gary, I am a professor in the College of Life Sciences at BYU and have been here for 6 years now. I teach my students about the evolution of all life, including humans, and my research (some of which is funded through Church funds) also addresses evolutionary mechanisms. I now have the BYU equivalent of "tenure" and as part of that process my teaching and research were extensively reviewed. Trust me, the University Administration is aware of what I do. When I was hired, I met with a General Authority, and we specifically discussed evolution. I bring this up because I am interested in your opinion about some possible scenarios regarding the future of BYU and the Church as a whole.
Option 1: After the last vestiges of the Church leadership who were directly influenced by the Fielding Smith/McKonkie era pass away, the number of anti-evolution statements from Church leaders in official venues drops to zero. Eventually, previous anti-evolution statements are dropped from new editions of Church manuals, including your Institute manuals. The church membership is largely composed of people who can accommodate evolution with their religious world view. Evolutionary biology research continues to thrive at BYU.
Option 2: A new generation of disciples who know the true meaning of "no death before the fall" increase in number and influence, and rise up to take their places in the highest quorums of the Church. Eventually, they realize that they cannot go on countenancing the influence of Darwinist professors like myself while continuing to preach a literalist understanding of scripture. The First Presidency issues an official statement clarifying that the true Church position all along has been that human bodies did not evolve from any common ancestors, and evolutionary biology research and teaching at BYU is discontinued.
Am I correct in interpreting your position being that you favor option 2? Which of these scenarios do you think would be the best in terms of building the Kingdom?
I suppose option 3 could be that things continue on just as they are, but I think if we are honest we can see that things rarely stay the same, as we gain further light and knowledge.
Dave: In answer to your question, it didn't start with Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and it won't end when the apostles and prophets who served with them all pass away. The doctrinal concepts that oppose human evolution are bigger and go deeper than you apparently imagine.
It will end when the earth is renewed and made paradisiacal again. Science will then be able to directly examine the earth as it was before the fall of Adam. Then what Scott Trotter said, as quoted in the Deseret News article that prompted this discussion, will be more fully understood.
He said: "Science and religion are not at odds in our faith. We accept truth wherever it is found and take the pragmatic view that where religion and science seem to clash, it is simply because there is insufficient data to reconcile the two."
What he said about "insufficient data" is right on target. I blogged about that earlier this year (here). After the Second Coming, we will have enough data to reconcile science and religion.
Thanks for joining the discussion. Come again.
If there are big, deep doctrinal concepts that oppose human evolution, why am I still employed? If I were engaged in teaching and research espousing other concepts that were opposed to gospel principles, would I be able to stay at BYU? Why does evolution get a pass?
Dave: Your question gets to the heart of my original post above. When Church President Joseph F. Smith eliminated evolution from the BYU curriculum in 1911, he stated that it was for doctrinal reasons. Sixty years later, his son Joseph Fielding Smith was Church President. The decision by the 1971 BYU Board of Trustees to overturn Joseph F. Smith's 1911 decision was NOT made because the doctrine had changed. Please consider the following:
S.Faux has a Ph.D. in experimental psychology from BYU and currently teaches cognitive neuroscience and human evolution at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa (more about S.Faux here). Four years ago, on this blog (click here), he made the some helpful (to me) observations about BYU evolution courses.
-------------- quote --------------
"I really don't know how any life science department could pass an external review with evolution being absent from the curriculum. I presume BYU makes use of external reviews. It is a standard procedure. Such an external review would mean that some biologist (or other life scientist) from a non-LDS school would evaluate and assess a particular life science department at BYU every few years. In other words, scientists do have some obligations to their peers beyond the university, not just to their administrators. Academic freedom is NOT the freedom to act irresponsibly.
"Naturally, we do not want chemistry departments teaching that wind, fire, and rain are the basic elements. We don't want psychology departments teaching about black and yellow biles as regulators of emotion. We don't want astronomy departments teaching the earth as the center of the universe. In the same vein, I cannot imagine a biology department teaching the so-called "intelligent design."
"In academia, accreditation and reputation really do matter. Even so, I would think the vast majority of BYU biologists really do want evolution to be taught regardless of any external pressure (from any direction). The real effect of the external pressure would be upon the administration to keep from exercising undue influence on the curriculum.
"We should keep in mind that normally faculty members have complete control over the curriculum. I have no reason to believe this is any different at BYU, which is where, by the way, I learned a significant chunk of my evolutionary understanding.
"Evolution is taught at BYU not for religious policy. It is taught out of scientific necessity."
-------------- end quote --------------
I agree that BYU science classes, just like science classes at other universities, should teach the current scientific view. It doesn't make sense to me that the Church be required to approve of every scientific theory taught in BYU science classes. And it does make sense to me that BYU prepare its students for biology graduate programs at other universities.
Then what do you make of the fact that we are supposed to be a "peculiar people", if the only reason evolution is taught is to conform to the expectations of the world? Wouldn't that be going against everything that the church teaches us? We hear time and time again in general conference how the gap between the church and the world is widening, and how we can't straddle the line--we need to stand firmly on the side of the church.
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense if evolution is true, and some bretheren have differing opinions, but in the end it doesn't really matter as long as we are all worthy to hold a temple rocommend.
Of course the doctrine had not changed. Rather the way the doctrine was understood had changed, and continues to change, such that evolution is not seen as a threat to faith or as undermining fundamental aspects of our religion.
It is true that it would be difficult to have an accredited life science program that did not implement evolutionary theory into the curriculum. But to say that BYU administration tolerates the teaching of evolution despite its supposed conflicts with gospel principles, merely to have an accredited life sciences program - to me this is insulting to the administration. I'm sure they would much rather get rid of the program entirely. If it were an issue of allowing evolution to be taught as a theory (using "theory" as you do) to prepare students for graduate school, then we'd have one course on evolution where students would be taught that "this is what the secular scientists teach, and here is why the teach this, but we know that this is not true because of x, y and z". There certainly would not be active research programs investigating the molecular mechanisms of evolutionary change, or the fundamental relationships between ecology and evolution, or using phylogenetics to sort out the "tree of life".
Dave and anonymous: No matter how much information I offer, it seems like you give it zero credibility. My thoughts about all of your questions and objections have been given directly or indirectly in my original post and in my followup comments. So go ahead and enjoy your obviously mind-already-made-up point of view. I wish you both well and invite you both to continue posting comments.
So, while I'm sure glad for stalwarts like Duane Jeffrey who persevered through some tough times as you have described in your post, the environment here is drastically different in 2012 and we are not expected to "counter" our teachings with a gospel perspective. Rather, truth is embraced wherever it is found.
And Church spokesman Scott Trotter is just wrong when he says there is insufficient data to reconcile science with the LDS faith.
Is that what you are saying?
What he actually said: "Science and religion are not at odds in our faith. We accept truth wherever it is found and take the pragmatic view that where religion and science seem to clash, it is simply because there is insufficient data to reconcile the two."
Notice that he didn't say that the insufficient data was scientific in nature. He didn't say it was religious in nature. The insufficient data, for example, could possibly be entirely on the religious side. There's certainly a lot about the gospel that hasn't been revealed, and a lot that remains unclear.
Note also the interesting use of "seem." He could have said "religion and science clash," but instead he said "religion and science seem to clash."
Scott Trotter said:
"Science and religion are not at odds in our faith. We accept truth wherever it is found and take the pragmatic view that where religion and science seem to clash, it is simply because there is insufficient data to reconcile the two.”
You might as well be accurate.
Scientific findings may at times clash with your personal interpretation of the LDS faith. The same findings may or may not clash with another person's interpretation.
Yes Tim, I quoted the whole thing myself in an earlier comment on this thread. And I did in fact notice everything you pointed out. My take on it leaves all of the apostles and prophets working together to advance the kingdom. The other point of view is that some of today's apostles teach what other apostles don't believe about scientific theories. I think that is a dangerous position to take, but it's your choice.
Dave, it's not about personal interpretations, it's about apostolic interpretations.
R. Gary, you say "The other point of view is that some of today's apostles teach what other apostles don't believe about scientific theories."
This is the case, in at least one example. Before I graduated from BYU-I, I asked Henry J. Eyring how I could teach my kids about the obvious truths of evolution while show them that the church is also true, so that when they got to high school and were learning various things in biology and seminary, they wouldn't feel like I had betrayed them in one of those areas.
He suggested that I teach it to my kids the same way his dad taught him: Teach that truth is truth, no matter what others may think. Sometimes good people see the world differently, and that's ok. It's ok to disagree, as long as you can maintain peace and harmony with others, and as long as you are always doing your best to keep the commandments.
So from explicit examples in his books, we can see that Henry Eyring believed in evolution, and from my first-hand experience, I know that Henry J. believes in evolution, and from his story, I can infer that Henry B. also believes in evolution (else why would Henry J. tell me what he did?).
So sure, sonme apostles may speak against evolution during conference, and that is their opinion. I don't feel the need to storm the stage in the conference center to refute those claims, and I doubt that Henry B. feels that need either. I'm sure that he understands that the membership of the church needs a feeling that the bretheren are united, rather than publicly bringing up disagreements about subjects that are not vital to our salvation.
Stanton S. The Church teaches that Adam and Eve were placed on a paradisiacal earth as immortal beings and married by God before the Fall brought death. For example:
"Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world." (Gospel Principles, p.241.)
Another example is President Henry B. Eyring in a 2008 First Presidency Message:
"The first marriage was performed by God in the garden when Adam and Eve were not subject to death." (Ensign, May 1998, p.66.)
To paraphrase Joseph Smith, a prophet is not a prophet when expressing personal opinions in a private context. The Church published statements of the apostles and prophets about human evolution are unanimous and unambiguous, and until a pro-evolution member of the FP/12 is willing to speak up, that isn't going to change.
Gary,
I posted above my experience with a BYU religion professor.
He made the claim in class that he had spoken to President Hinckley directly on this subject and was told that he also thought evolution was likely but that it wasn't worth the fight to deal with the naysayers.
If true, that explains much of what goes on today.
Personally, I don't think Gordon B. Hinckley was someone who would say one thing in private and another thing in public. Here are three of his public statements about evolution. The third one was published twice in official Church media.
"I believe in evolution, not organic evolution, as it is called, but in the evolution of the mind, the heart, and the soul of man. I believe in improvement. I believe in growth." (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley)
"A student asked me the other day whether I believe in evolution. I replied that I know little about organic evolution, but I am very much concerned with the evolution of man, the child of God." (BYU Speech)
"I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God." (Ensign First Presidency Message, Oct. 1984; published also in the New Era, May 2004)
Ok, so help me see where the disconnect is.
I believe in evolution. I believe that my lifestyle and my view of life in general are compatible with church teachings. I don't feel the need to stand at a pulpit teaching evolution to people, but in my personal beliefs I believe that the teachings of the church are compatible with evolution, which is why I strive to be a faithful member of the church.
So other than position in the church, what is the difference between me and Pres. Eyring? Why shouldn't you write him a letter demanding that he repent of his sinful view on life?
Stanton S: President Eyring gave official public support to the anti-evolution doctrine of "no death before the fall" and he also approved the "no death before the fall" teachings found in the official Priesthood and Relief Society manual, Gospel Principles. Quotes supporting these two assertions were made in an earlier comment. So until he publicly says otherwise, officially he doesn't believe in the millions or billions of years of death on this earth prior to Adam that would be required by Darwin's theory.
More importantly, nobody around here has written a letter demanding that you repent of your sinful views regarding evolution. Actually, I think you and I have a lot more in common that you realize. See, the Church is not neutral on caffeinated soda any more than it is neutral on evolution. You believe in evolution and I believe in drinking Pepsi Cola. Pretty much the same thing, in my view.
And I think we creationists and you evolutionists should gladly home teach each other, participate together on ward temple trips, and in all other ways enjoy full fellowship with each other as Church members, just like Pepsi drinkers and caffeine purists do.
Anonymous wrote: "But I must say, posts like these are ones that cause me to lose a bit of my testimony."
R Gary, you don't realize that you are unwittingly making a very convincing argument that the prophets and apostles are wrong.
Interestingly when I was at BYU all people in the College of Physical Sciences and Engineering were required to take a special religion course. It was a 2 credit class with different people coming in to teach one or two classes. The people were either from various science departments or the religion department. Interestingly a lot of evolution and cosmology was discussed - all extremely pro science. The closest I could think to someone offering caveats was someone from CES who taught about punctuated equilibrium and the idea that the history might be more complex than biological orthodoxy suggests. But even he took evolution and the fossil record for granted. (i.e. nothing akin to a no death before the fall) Note this wasn't a science class but a religion class - the focus was on religious issues in the sciences and everyone was ridiculously pro-evolution. My favorite section was the one taught by the famous Mormon evolutionist, Paul Cox, who was at that time still at BYU.
R. Gary, you said of Pres Eyring, "So until he publicly says otherwise, officially he doesn't believe in the millions or billions of years of death on this earth prior to Adam that would be required by Darwin's theory."
You honestly believe that a physicist, son of a chemist, father of a geologist, does not believe the fossil and geological record of this earth to be true? That it's all a big hoax?
Stanton S: President Eyring isn't a physicist. He has an undergraduate degree in physics, but his masters degree and doctorate degree are in business administration. "Though he had the intellect to succeed in a career in science, Hal found that his passion lay in teaching, lifting, and strengthening others." (Ensign, July 2008.) Read the article to find out why he changed his major.
I am certain President Eyring doesn't view the fossil record as a hoax. But neither does he see human evolution in that evidence. To illustrate, let's liken you to a man who walks into his kitchen on his birthday after work and sees eggshells in the trash, flour on the floor, and a birthday cake on the table. Based on the evidence, earlier that day your wife made you a birthday cake.
While the evidence doesn't lie, additional evidence can drastically change your conclusion. And your conclusion about the cake will change when you discover a voice message to your wife left that morning by your son about her earlier promise to bake a batch of cookies for his school class, and when you notice a credit card payment dated that very day to Cakes Unusual.
Although your initial conclusion about the cake was wrong, the problem wasn't false evidence. The eggshells and flour weren't a hoax. The problem was incomplete evidence. And nobody can be certain that today's science has all the evidence.
In fact, science by definition excludes the supernatural. Therefore, science throws out evidence that is crucial to an understanding of the origin of man. I am sure that for President Eyring, the supernatural world is as real as the natural world. And additional evidence from that source has obviously led him to a conclusion that science doesn't understand.
Elders Widstoe and Talmage believed that there was life and death before then fall. The Book of Mormon teaches that Adam and Eve would not have died had they not transgressed, but it is silent about the plants and animals already present in the world.
Every LDS biologist I have met believes that the world is millions of years old, that the fossil record shows that many different forms of life arose and disappeared prior to the advent of human beings, and that there is no major incompatibility between science and the gospel on these issue.
The guide to Church doctrine here should be the scriptures and the living prophets, particularly what President Monson is saying today. Did President Monson say something about evolution in conference since he has been prophet? No. Do the scriptures unambiguously support your teaching? No.
The espousal of anti scientific views by seminary teachers and even some religion professors has created a stumbling block for some of our youth. You are entitled to your own opinions, but please do not infer that you speak for the Chirch on this matter. Only President Monson can do that.
Anonymous: You said, "The guide to Church doctrine here should be the scriptures and the living prophets, particularly what President Monson is saying today."
You say that, and yet your own comment begins by referencing Widtsoe and Talmage.
1.
Apparently, you haven't read Widtsoe's essay on the origin of life on earth or the one on whether the doctrine of evolution should be accepted (here and here). And apparently, you aren't familiar with what Elder Widtsoe said about evolution the year before he died:
-------------- quote --------------
"One of the theories of evolution based largely upon the work of the great scientist, Charles Darwin, was that man was only a product of changes in organic life, throughout long periods of time.... Today,... ' we are more keenly aware than in Darwin's day of our ignorance as to the origin and affiliation of the greater classes.'
"Clearly the theory of evolution has added nothing to our understanding of the beginning of things. The ancient view that God is the Creator of all things is still the best, because it is true." (The Improvement Era, July 1951, p.531; emphasis in the original; see also Evidences and Reconciliations, pp.166 & 169.)
-------------- end quote --------------
2.
James E. Talmage was one of the most science friendly apostles of this dispensation. Here is what Talmage said about the origin of man two years before he died:
-------------- quote --------------
"Man is the child of God.... He is born in the lineage of Deity, not in the posterity of the brute creation" ("The Earth and Man," 1931, 13-14).
-------------- end quote --------------
That's right, NOT in the posterity of the brute creation.
3.
It is my belief that God has called apostles and prophets (the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve) specifically to teach doctrine, so that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." (Eph. 4:14.)
I believe the apostles and prophets are appointed to teach doctrine and interpret scripture. The Lord says twice that the elders of His Church are to say "none other things" than that which the apostles and prophets teach (D&C 52:9, 36).
In his book, President Hinckley included the following paragraph twice:
-------------- quote --------------
"The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles, called and ordained to hold the keys of the priesthood, have the authority and responsibility to govern the Church, to administer its ordinances, to expound its doctrine, and to establish and maintain its practices. Each man who is ordained an Apostle and sustained a member of the Council of the Twelve is sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator." (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p.77 and p.84.)
-------------- end quote --------------
The First Presidency and Twelve are called and ordained to hold the keys of the priesthood and have the authority and responsibility to govern the Church and expound its doctrine,
At the risk of repeating myself, let me point out that for more than 182 years, the apostles and prophets have talked about the origin of man in official settings. The result? Church published apostolic statements about the origin of man speak unanimously against the idea that organic evolution explains the origin of man.
4.
Yes. Without using the word evolution, President Monson has indeed said something about evolution in conference since he has been prophet.
"Who can doubt that there is a designer?" declared President Monson in the April 2010 general conference. With thoughtful consideration Monson reasons, if there is design in the world, there "must be a designer." According to President Monson, "the Grand Designer" created the heaven and the earth. For example, there was light, President Monson said, because the Grand Designer said "Let there be light." The sun, moon, and stars "came by His design."
"Man alone," said President Monson, "received intelligence, a brain, a mind, and a soul. Man alone with these attributes had the capacity for faith and hope, for inspiration and ambition." President Monson said man is "the noblest work of the Great Designer."
The point is NOT what "man alone" received. The point is the Prophet's teachings clearly support the idea that "man's mortal body was made in the image of God in a separate creation" (The Church's web site about Jesus Christ, discussed here).
Conclusion
The apostles you cite do NOT support your claim that there is no major incompatibility between science and the gospel regarding the origin of man. Widtsoe and Talmage both expressly denied the evolutionary origin of man.
What you and your LDS biologist friends believe about human evolution clearly does NOT speak for the Church on this matter.
Seminary and Institute teachers and Religion Professors are supposed to teach "none other things" than that which the apostles and prophets have said about the gospel, including the topic of the origin of man, and when they do this they are NOT creating a stumbling block for anyone.
Maybe LDS biologists should consider the possibility that the apostles and prophets have evidence relating to the origin of man that should be considered alongside the fossil record. Perhaps it is your failure to do this that is creating a stumbling block for some of our youth.
Dear Brother Gary:
First, thank you for posting my comment. As owner of the blog you were under no obligation to do so, and I think it speak highly of your character that you publish dissenting views.
Second, thank you for being such a good member of the church. You have clearly lived an outstanding life, and have produced a wonderful family. I am sure that if you were in my high priest's group that we would be good friends.
Now, concerning your response to my comments. You did not respond to what I said which dealt strictly with your belief that there was no death before the fall. You proclaim in your blog headline that "death for all life forms began when Adam fell."
While some members of the Church, including a few seminary and religion teachers believe this, this claim is not supported by the scriptures, nor is taught by our living prophet Thomas S. Monson, and is therefore it is not a doctrine of the Church.
You infer that this doctrine has unanimous support by the General Authorities -- and indeed some such as Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie taught this. But this view was not held by all other General Authorities, such as Elder John A. Widstoe and Elder James E. Talmage.
Elder Widstoe wrote in his book "Joseph Smith as a Scientist" (pp 50-51): “God speaks in various ways to men. The stars, the mountains, the grass and the soil, are all, to him who reads aright, forms of divine revelation . . .In the beginning, it appears that water covered the whole earth. . . . It was the great age of fishes. . . . Upon the land came, first, according to the story of the rocks, a class of animals known as amphibians. Then followed an age in which the predominating animals were gigantic reptiles. . . . During the age of these prehistoric monsters, the earth was yet more fully prepared for higher life.”
Brigham Young wrote: I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science.
You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has.
In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 258).
The fact is that some good members of the church believe what you proclaim, eg. that there was no death of plants or animals prior to the fall, while many other good members of the church believe , along with Brigham Young that "our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular."
When our youth, who have taken science classes in high school and college, hit teachings such as yours that "contradict the facts of science" in their seminary or religion classes, this becomes a stumbling block for some, who feel that they must choose between the truths of the restored gospel and the facts of science which are easily discernible to any careful observer.
Debates over such private beliefs cause little damage to the faith of established members. A few months ago a member of our HP group taught that the earth was 6,000 years old, that at the fall of Adam the earth fell out of orbit around Kolob, that there was no death of any living creature occurred before the fall, etc. The members of our group, which include astronomers, geologists, and physicists politely disagreed, and everyone was happy together at the next temple trip social.
But if he had gone down the hall and preached the same doctrine to our teenage youth who are struggling to gain testimonies of the Church, one or two might have been deeply disturbed and even had their testimony threatened.
I think this is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Romans "15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." You have absolutely have every right to your own opinion, particularly since you are such a faithful and outstanding member of the Church. But your "meat" on this issue could be damaging to the faith of our youth.
So here is what I suggest, with as much kindness as I can muster. Take down your blog, at least the part that proclaims that no living creature died before the fall. Keep your personal views on this matter off the internet where it might be seen by impressionable youth. What you teach is not a doctrine of the Church are you are not authorized to represent the Church on this issue. I also suggest that you take down your attack in your blog on Michael Whiting. I have met Brother Whiting and he is not only an extraordinary scientist, but he is a deeply devoted member of the Church. You would be proud to have him as your son. He is a great asset to the BYU and to the Church.
Instead I suggest, as appropriate, that you continue to share your personal views on this topic with your high priests group, where your views will be treated with politeness and kindness.
Anonymous: Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding the focus of your comment. In my own defense, let me point out that (a) the opening post is about human evolution, (b) most of the comments have been about human evolution, and (c) your statement that "the fossil record shows that many different forms of life arose and disappeared prior to the advent of human beings" appears not to change the subject.
Now as to your current claim that ndbf is not a doctrine of the Church. That may have been true in 1931, but it is not true in 2012. When you consider that only two of 97 modern apostles have openly questioned ndbf and none since Widtsoe died 60 years ago, it becomes obvious why seminary, institute, other Church published manuals teach ndbf today. During the past 34 years, ndbf has received repeated approval in one form or another from the First Presidency and the Twelve.
1.
Gospel Principles was written in 1978 and ndbf has been in it all along. The current 2009 edition teaches ndbf this way:
Chapter 6: "When Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden,... there was no death" (p.28). "Their part in our Father's plan was to bring mortality into the world" (p.27).
Chapter 38 corroborates: "Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world" (p.219).
2.
In 1979, the Scriptures Publication Committee (Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie), under the direction of the First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney), placed ndbf teachings in the LDS Bible Dictionary (see death, p.655; Fall of Adam, p.670; flesh, p.676; paradise, p.742; and restitution; restoration, p.761).
3.
Every copy of the LDS Bible has bound in with it the LDS Bible Dictionary (English) or Guide to the Scriptures (Spanish); and all electronic editions of the LDS Scriptures have them both. Guide to the Scriptures says: "The Fall brought mortality and death to the earth (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)." ("Death, Physical.")
4.
Teachings of Presidents of the Church is a collection of gospel reference books established by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who approved Churchwide distribution of ndbf teachings in the Harold B. Lee and Wilford Woodruff manuals.
5.
In 1988, Boyd K. Packer taught ndbf in both General Conferences. Again in 2008, President Packer emphasized that the Fall was "essential if the condition of mortality was to exist ." If the condition of mortality could not exist without the Fall, then it clearly did not exist before the Fall.
6.
In his April 2000 general conference talk, Russell M. Nelson taught ndbf. In the April 2001 general conference, Elder Nelson recommended the Bible Dictionary entry for "Fall of Adam (page 670, paragraphs 1–2)" (Ensign, May 2001, p.32). The following year, Elder Nelson recommended the same Bible Dictionary paragraphs (Ensign, Mar. 2002, p.17). Part of the first paragraph in the Bible Dictionary entry for Fall of Adam states:
"Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the ' forbidden fruit,' Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the ' first flesh ' upon the earth (Moses 3:7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal." (Bible Dictionary, Fall of Adam.)
7.
Current Sunday School and Primary manuals ask teachers to understand the Bible Dictionary entry for "Fall of Adam" before teaching certain lessons.
8.
The missionary guide, Preach My Gospel, sets forth doctrines that LDS missionaries are expected to study and teach. Twenty eight times, missionaries are directed by Preach My Gospel to read and become familiar with ideas found in the LDS Bible Dictionary.
The Scripture Study section on page 52 asks missionaries to study the Bible Dictionary entry for "Death" which states explicitly:
"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."
9.
The First Presidency's doctrinal guidebook, True to the Faith, teaches that "the Fall of Adam brought physical death into the world (see Moses 6:48)."
Conclusion
The above sample is large enough to demonstrate how pervasive and persistent ndbf is in LDS media. I will do as you suggest and remove all posts that promote ndbf, when and if LDS.org removes all reference to the items I've noted above.
.
Anonymous: I think you misrepresent Brigham Young. It all hinges on what is "demonstrated" by science. Let us remember, as Harold B. Lee pointed out six months after becoming Curch President, that "If science is not true, you cannot reconcile truth with error." (Ensign, Dec. 1972, p.2.)
President Monson's thoughts on science and religion are important for us today. He said:
"I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it. (Messages of inspiration from President Monson, Church News, Jan. 2, 2010.)
Dear Gary: Thank you again for publishing my dissent, and I particularly thank you for the courteous way you responded.
I did not misrepresent Brigham Young, I merely quoted him: “I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has. In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular.”
I also quoted Elder Widstoe who believed that plants and animals have been living and dying on our earth for eons of time.
You responded with statements from church manuals, the bible dictionary, etc, some of which clearly refer to the mortality of Adam and Eve rather than plants and animals. The best quote you came up with is from President Monson: "I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it.” If our prophet does not understand the processes of creation, then perhaps you don’t either.
Gary, you think you are right and I do not fault you for that. Most of think that our opinions are right. The difference is that I do not raise a rational scientific view of the age of the earth and the abundant evidence of the life and death of plants and animals before the fall to the level of a church doctrine. You unfortunately claim that your opinion is Church Doctrine, and that’s precisely what hits wavering youth right between the eyes, and they feel they have to choose between the Church and Science.
You are not authorized to establish your opinion as Church Doctrine, even if you think you are right. What you are teaching is not abundantly supported by the scriptures, nor is it taught by our living prophet. In fact, he has said nothing about this in the recent conferences.
That’s why I think you should remove that part of your blog in which you claim that no animals and plants died before the fall, and why I think you should take down the attack on Brother Michael Whiting. I would not wait for LDS.org to remove the manuals. You are a very good member of the Church, and someone I would like as a friend, but neither you nor or I want to get out ahead of the Lord’s prophet on an issue that can cause some of our youth to leave the Church. Thank you again for your courtesy and being such a gentleman in this discussion.
Anonymous: The Book of Mormon helps people understand the Bible correctly. In exactly the same way, the words of Harold B. Lee and Thomas S. Monson about science and religion help us understand the words of Brigham Young.
Do the scriptures unambiguously support ndbf? As authoritatively interpreted by the apostles and prophets for the past 60 years, they most certainly do.
My personal opinion about ndbf is that Church members can believe whatever they want about it. But what you cannot do, and expect me to stand idly by, is tell the world that ndbf is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is. (See my previous comment.)
BYU was founded, in part, to counter Darwinism.
“We have enough and to spare, at present in these mountains, of schools where young infidels are made because the teachers are so tender-footed that they dare not mention the principles of the gospel to their pupils, but have no hesitancy in introducing into the classroom the theories of Huxley, of Darwin, or of Miall, and the false political economy which contends against co-operation and the United Order. This course I am resolutely and uncompromisingly opposed to, and I hope to see the day when the doctrines of the gospel will be taught in all our schools, when the revelation of the Lord will be our texts, and our books will be written and manufactured by ourselves and in our own midst. As a beginning in this direction I have endowed the Brigham Young Academy at Provo.” (Brigham Young, Letters of Brigham Young to His Sons, p. 200)
<< Home