On Evolution – Catching up with the catholics

[Anonymous]

There comes a time to acknowledge that our further light and knowledge are sufficient to dispel some things we thought as doctrine in the past. For Joseph Smith wrote:

Doctrine & Covernants 93:24-25 wrote:

Tuth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

A few years ago, Pope John Paul II took a position on evolution that acknowledged that it was more than a theory

John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution wrote:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points…. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”

Current catholic doctrine supports the idea that creation occured as science demonstrates it to be so, through natural processes of evolution. They propose that this still constitutes ‘ex nihilo’ creation, in that the big bang started things off ‘from nothing’ as it were, into the vastness of the universe. Further, Catholic policy states that any teaching of creationism or intelligent design should not be in the science classes, but rather, in classes associated with religion.

Fr. George Coyne, Chief Astronomer of the Vatican, in a satement on 18 November 2005 wrote:

Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.

This is not to say that Catholics now reject the role of god in creation, nor do they accept that the ensoulment of man is a natural process. This ensoulment makes man man — “anthropogenesis”. The current pope clearly laid out that the ensoulment of man is an act of ‘special creation’:

Joseph Ratzinger, in 2008 wrote:

The clay became man at the moment in which a being for the first time was capable of forming, however dimly, the thought of “God”. The first Thou that—however stammeringly—was said by human lips to God marks the moment in which the spirit arose in the world. Here the Rubicon of anthropogenesis was crossed. For it is not the use of weapons or fire, not new methods of cruelty or of useful activity, that constitute man, but rather his ability to be immediately in relation to God. This holds fast to the doctrine of the special creation of man … herein … lies the reason why the moment of anthropogenesis cannot possibly be determined by paleontology: anthropogenesis is the rise of the spirit, which cannot be excavated with a shovel. The theory of evolution does not invalidate the faith, nor does it corroborate it. But it does challenge the faith to understand itself more profoundly and thus to help man to understand himself and to become increasingly what he is: the being who is supposed to say Thou to God in eternity.

So in the end, Catholics believe that ensoulment is an act of god, and cannot be proven or disproven by anthropology. To accept the theory of evolution as true does not invalidate faith, nor does it relegate god to the background. That which is unprovable with science, the origin and destiny of the soul, is the provenance of revelation.

Why cannot the church today adopt a similar position?

B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmadge believed similar things. If something is true, then we need to accept it as such. That which cannot be proven true or false remains a vital component of faith. While we differ on the concept of ‘ex nihilo’/from nothing creation, we certainly believe that all truth is part of the whole of the gospel. Our understanding of material nature, as reflected in Doctrine and Covenants Section 131, coupled with the idea that god works through natural and higher laws as stated in Section 88 should enable us to readily accept that god works through the miraculous power of nature. Indeed when we observe the movement of the heavens, we are observing god moving in his power and glory.

[Anonymous]

I think we could, and many members do just that. There are still young-earth literalists, but Mormonism has a history of incorporating science dating back to the people you mentioned Wayfarer (Talmage, Roberts, etc.). It would have continued on that track had it not been for the Harold B. Lee / Joseph Fielding Smith / Bruce R. McConkie kabal pushing through their agenda with such extreme zeal for retrenchment.

Our top leaders, the prophets seers and revelators, seem so loathe to take a position on anything these days that isn’t a slam dunk, simple lifestyle decision. Why are we so afraid of theology???!!!

So at this point, as best I can tell, we’re rather schizophrenic on the subject.

[Anonymous]

My feeling is the LDS church has setup certain positions in the past, and while we don’t know things for sure, like to stick to the past and not change. Sometimes this is even done to affirm constant iron-rod thinking, while the rest of the world flounders with new ideas from science or other fallen or apostatized religions blow to and fro with the winds of change, with the reason of man mingled with scripture.

There is a security element to it. There is a draw for constant faith. It does not value progressive thinking.

I often hear the example that science once thought the earth was flat, then changed to see the earth was round, while the prophets of God knew all along what science didn’t. I think these stories are folk-stories and pacify some who don’t care to find out how true these claims are. I also hear this at times about the Word of Wisdom, and now doctors claim a glass of wine can be good for you…with snickers from class members about how wayward these doctors are…because surely, the Lord’s law of health is absolute and definite (…um, that’s not a vodka reference )

I think too often this approach turns class discussions into critical claims of other religions or people outside the church, when in reality, we can often learn things from our catholic brothers and sisters. We have many times in the past.

The Lord does not only work through Thomas S Monson to inspire minds and bring new truths to His children. We should not be so possessive of Father’s attention.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

So at this point, as best I can tell, we’re rather schizophrenic on the subject.

as opposed to how clearly our Catholic friends have taken a stance on the issue — it’s refreshing to see.

I was brought up on the idea that truth trumps misplaced faith in something. Once we find out the truth it may change something we held dear in our faith, but was not true. The history of evolution is quite clearly not what the bible says. It means reappraisal of what the bible is to the mature, thinking believer. Further light and knowledge should be a cause for rejoicing!

I have held on to the idea that the church values truth above dogma. I have almost lost this belief entirely, but still hope for a shred of reason in the faith.

Heber13 wrote:

My feeling is the LDS church has setup certain positions in the past, and while we don’t know things for sure, like to stick to the past and not change. Sometimes this is even done to affirm constant iron-rod thinking, while the rest of the world flounders with new ideas from science or other fallen or apostatized religions blow to and fro with the winds of change, with the reason of man mingled with scripture.

There is a security element to it. There is a draw for constant faith. It does not value progressive thinking.

But holding on to falsehoods when the more enlightened facts come about is just silly. It’s a formula for sending the church into obvlivion. To be relevant, it needs to embrace light and truth, as it says it does.

Heber13 wrote:

The Lord does not only work through Thomas S Monson to inspire minds and bring new truths to His children. We should not be so possessive of Father’s attention.

Tell THAT to those who hold to the 14 fundamentals.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But holding on to falsehoods when the more enlightened facts come about is just silly. It’s a formula for sending the church into obvlivion. To be relevant, it needs to embrace light and truth, as it says it does.

Yes, it is silly, and naive. I like your post and hope we can learn from our Catholic friends, not dismiss them with our pride and silliness.

Quote:

Tell THAT to those who hold to the 14 fundamentals.

I’ve carefully tried, and it doesn’t go well. They just think I’m wanting to break down views of right and wrong, and change truth to fit into my definitions, not humbly follow the prophet who will not lead us astray.

No, I’ve found it doesn’t help talking about these things to those who love 14 fundamental thinking. , I just let them be and change the subject. Agree to disagree. But to me, it doesn’t make any sense that the Pope talking about these things is being led by some evil spirit or something. It’s just silly.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Our top leaders, the prophets seers and revelators, seem so loathe to take a position on anything these days that isn’t a slam dunk, simple lifestyle decision. Why are we so afraid of theology???!!!

If your want to be prophetic, you have to be right. Any chance of being wrong in “the same yesterday, today, and forever” sense is too big a risk to take. That’s the problem with trying to be the only true and living church with which God is well pleased.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Our top leaders, the prophets seers and revelators, seem so loathe to take a position on anything these days that isn’t a slam dunk, simple lifestyle decision. Why are we so afraid of theology???!!!

The most official statement from the Church on evolution can be found in a 2002 publication of the Ensign: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng. Note that it is a reprint of a statement from 1909.

I think if you asked for a more current statement from our leaders, the response you would get is that an understanding of role of evolution in the creation process is not essential for our salvation. On a practical level, such a position makes sense though it may not be satisfactory to those with inquiring minds.

[Anonymous]

Interestingly, that official position (the re-printing of the 1909 statement) leaves open the possibility of evolution being the process by which our bodies were formed. It stresses that “mankind” is not just a species of smart apes – that “mankind” (as a combination of mortal body and immortal spirit) is a unique species, but it doesn’t deny evolution explicitly. (There is another thread where we talked about that exhaustively, and most people here were confounded by my parsing of the important sentences in the 1909 statement. )

I’m sure that’s because there were apostles at the time who believed in evolution – strongly. Since there wasn’t consensus one way or another, they focused on the theological issues of human uniqueness and divine nature but didn’t rule out evolution in the process.

I personally am glad that statement still stands. I don’t want it to be updated – unless it’s done in a way that is even more explicit in its refusal to deny evolution of the physical, mortal body. I don’t anticipate that for a while, so I’m fine with what we have. I just wish some apostles would stop taking veiled shots at it.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

Any chance of being wrong in “the same yesterday, today, and forever” sense is too big a risk to take. That’s the problem with trying to be the only true and living church with which God is well pleased.

It was an especially risky assertion in the time of the most dramatic and rapid changes in all of human history. Unfortunately, it was a gamble made at the worst possible time in the market. The bought high and have to sell low.

I’m NOT saying that attitude makes the whole church or gospel wrong, it was just a wrong assertion. The “restoration” isn’t a single point of time, and event in the past that is done. It’s more like a process you could even claim spans the entirety of human evolution — that we are being “restored” towards our ultimate destination. We are building a story in the temporary construct of flowing time that helps us understand our eternal (outside of time) nature and existence.

[Anonymous]

This is nice to read about the Catholics. I remember reading a similar proposition by old Hugh. I think what he wrote was that man becomes man when he starts keeping a record. I’ve been reflecting on what I’ve read by Jung about the collective unconscious and how it has developed, in relation to the concept of forming humans from the earth and then putting their spirits into them.

It’s fascinating to me that we have the Adam and Eve story told so blatantly mythologically in the Temple – the ritual doesn’t scan as factual history at all. The Adam and Eve story is a very useful story, maybe even more powerful when considered as a guiding myth/metaphor, discarding any insistence that it has to be held as fact. I wonder if it’s only the Book of Moses that has kept such a strong commitment to the idea of a literal single pair of progenitors for all of humanity.

Not even really the Book of Moses, but a literalist interpretation of it, ignoring the Lord’s very interesting words “true even as I will.”

[Author]

Posts