Posts
Mormon Matters Evolution Podcast
I almost forgot to mention this: In August the Mormon Matters podcast had an episode devoted to Mormonism and evolution with participants including James McLachlan (professor of philosophy and religion Western Carolina University), Steven Peck (SteveP; professor of biology at BYU), and Duane Jeffery (emeritus professor of zoology at BYU). The discussion runs through a basic history of the interaction of evolution with the Church and BYU, and then turns to a collection of auxiliary issues. It's a nice discussion and I encourage you to listen to the whole thing.
I've never met or corresponded with Duane Jeffery, but I always enjoy listening to what he has to say and am a fan of his efforts. (Got that? Good.) So let me shift and say that I think he made three questionable claims that need better substantiation.
They are:
1. That the Improvement Era 1910 Priesthood Quorums Table came from the First Presidency (@ 30:00). The basis for this claim seems to come from the fact that Joseph F. Smith was one of the editors of the magazine. However, although we often disagree, I agree with R. Gary that the evidence that the statement represents the position of the First Presidency, or even just Joseph F. Smith, is weak. I do think its publication was significant--Joseph F. Smith could have stopped it or later published a repudiation of it. So my interpretation is that Joseph F. Smith and the First Presidency did not find it objectionable, but that it did not have their imprimatur.
2. That the 1925 First Presidency statement, "Mormon View of Evolution," is the official church position: (@ 32:00) "If there is an official church position, this has got to be it." The basis for this claim seems to be that because the statement is more recent than the 1909 statement, it has priority. The 1925 statement consists entirely of quotes from the 1909 statement, but never mentions it. So it makes sense to think of the 1925 statement as representing the most current (!) position, and I think Jeffery's statement would have been uncontroversial in, say, 1928.
However, as a practical matter I think it is a difficult position to defend because i) the Feb 2002 issue of the Ensign published the 1909 statement as the Church's official position, ii) the 1909 statement has at times been distributed to people inquiring of the Church's position, and iii) the 1925 statement is pretty much ignored as a reference in Church manuals, in contrast to the 1909 statement.
I imagine Jeffery might defend his statement as follows: In a presentation given in 2004, he said that the publication of the 1909 statement in the Ensign was somewhat controversial behind the scenes, and that BYU was assured by the First Presidency that it's publication did not supersede the BYU evolution packet. And as published in his book, Mormonism and Evolution, inquiries to the Church are not always answered with the 1909 statement. So I can see where he might be coming from.
My opinion--and I speculate that Jeffery would agree with me--is that the question of the Church's position on evolution is not resolvable to a single sentence or to one statement. It is better represented by the BYU packet, which consists of several statements made or authorized by the First Presidency, preferably informed by a sense of the history.
3. That the traditional Mormon view of natural law has largely been abandoned since the mid-1950's (@ 1:25:00), partially because of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. I would be interested in a fuller justification for this statement. As I recently pointed out, Joseph Fielding Smith and James E. Talmage wrote almost identical passages regarding miracles and natural law. I'm open to Jeffery's statement--anecdotally it seems true, and perhaps it boils down to a matter of interpretation--but I would like to see more evidence that such is the case.
Again, I'm a fan of Duane Jeffery, but these are things that I would not be comfortable repeating to others without better evidence.
All that aside, give the podcast a listen. I think you'll enjoy the conversation.
11 comments:
Two follow up questions for you:
1) Re the 1910 NE statement you say that although "the First Presidency did not find it objectionable, ...it did not have their imprimatur." While I agree that the authorship can only be guessed at, I'm not so quick to dismiss its weight. That said, I agree with your point that it is inaccurate to characterize the statement as unambiguously originating with the First Presidency, as Jeffery does in the interview. Even so, what do you see as the real functional difference between a statement authored by a First Presidency member, and one published as an anonymous editorial under the direction of the President? Isn't it accurate to say that in 1910 the Church, through their publishing outlet under the direction of the First Presidency, endorsed a statement to the effect that evolution was a valid explanation for the origin of man? If so, shouldn't the statement be considered equally among the several others dealing with the question, especially given its historical context?
2) Your #3 deals with natural law and I know little about the history of thought on this, only that I have read a few essays here and there, some old some new, from LDS authors that lean on or defend natural law. Could you expand on the idea of natural law, and the history of its importance in LDS thought? Do you subscribe to the notion of natural law, and if not, what do you suggest as an alternative explanation for the relative predictability of material processes?
Thanks,
rh
Geez, raedyohed, what's with the essay questions? :-)
1. I think the 1910 statement is important. It shows the range of opinions among General Authorities at the time, and undercuts the notion that the Origin of Man statement settled everything. But I don't think it's accurate to say it was a First Presidency statement.
What's the difference? I don't think there's an objective answer for that. Some people won't see much of a difference, others will. But I think full disclosure of what is known or unknown about its authorship and publication is better than simply attributing it to the First Presidency. I would be thrilled if the First Presidency had a hand in its publication, I just want to know the evidence for it if that is the case.
2. Could you expand on the idea of natural law, and the history of its importance in LDS thought?
No, because I don't know a whole lot about it either. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says:
"There is, however, another strand of thought among Latter-day Saints, one that affirms what might be called the "laws of nature," where that term identifies the regularities found by the sciences. These laws are seen as descriptive, not prescriptive or normative. They are thought either to be set in place by God or to exist independently of God's will and hence function as conditions that must be managed as plans are worked out by man in cooperation with God. Such views are entertained by many Latter-day Saints, especially those trained in the natural sciences, but they have not been systematically set forth or integrated with the teachings in the scriptures."
I agree with Brigham Young that, to borrow from Arthur C. Clark, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a miracle. You can also get a window into my thinking from this post.
Jared*: I appreciate your link to my analysis of the anonymous 1910 remark. Yet you claim in your comment that it "shows the range of opinions among General Authorities at the time."
Duane Jeffery insists the anonymous remark has ties to the First Presidency, which is the only way "the range of opinions" among the apostles and prophets could possibly be said to include human evolution.
But Jeffery's assertion is fallacious. There has never been a Church published apostolic comment favorable toward human evolution.
Gary,
I'm afraid I don't follow you. Are you denying that any General Authorities had a hand in its publication?
Jared*, publication of the anonymous 1910 remark coincides with the 1910-11 controversy over three BYU faculty members teaching human evolution. When the dust settled, theories of human evolution had been kicked out of BYU and the three instructors were gone.
I'm saying there is a difference between apostolic and anonymous comments.
Insofar as it endorses human evolution, the anonymous comment falls outside the range of opinion found among apostles and prophets.
Gary,
Couldn't you just enjoy the fact that I publicly agreed with you about something?
So, to be clear, you are saying that the two apostles on the committee responsible for the Priesthood Quorums' Table column did not in fact share the view published in the column that month? You know that how?
Interestingly, one of those apostles was David O. McKay, who would one day as Church president tell anybody who asked that the Church did not have a position on evolution, or (as reported by Marion D. Hanks) that "It would do no violence to my faith to learn that God had formed man in one way or another," or (as reported by Carlfred Broderick) "The thing you need to remember about evolution is that the Lord has never revealed anything about the matter. People have their opinions, but the Lord has not revealed the details of how he created the earth."
And another committee member, Stephen L. Richards, would one day write as an apostle, "If the evolutionary hypothesis of the creation of life and matter in the universe is ultimately found to be correct, and I shall neither be disappointed nor displeased if it shall turn out so to be..."
All of those statements sound a lot like the 1910 PQT column.
Anything is possible, I suppose. But based on current evidence, I find it at least as hard to swallow the proposition that none of the apostles agreed with the 1910 column as I do that it came directly from the First Presidency.
Jared*, I've posted my response here.
Thanks Jared*,
I have proven myself time and again incapable of formulating questions in under 500 words! I appreciate your responses.
R.Gary keeps us all honest, as usual! A proper contextual understanding of the 1910 statement is critical, which is why I asked. So I'm grateful for both his and your comments. In light of these I would maybe amend your statement thus: "It shows the range of [valid] opinions [within, and even published by, the Church] at the time [immediately following the stern 1909 statement], [thus undercutting] the notion that the [1909] Origin of Man statement [completely ruled out evolution as a valid LDS theory for man's origin]."
......
Natural law interests me in terms of it's historical development, it's impact on LDS thought, and it's relevance to current scientific paradigms. But I'm almost certainly much less informed about it than you are. Maybe in some not too distant future we can come back to it with more to talk about. Thanks again.
Gary,
Thanks for your response. I was going to let you have the last word, but I want to touch on one thing that your response brought up.
It does not surprise me that David O. McKay said, wrote, or implied different things at different times. It suggests to me that his mind was not entirely settled on the issue. We all find ourselves divided on some issues, and the degree to which we express one side or the other is often dependent on the circumstances, not to mention simple fluctuation over time. And determining whether a book is appropriate for the Church to publish is not the time to start injecting your own doctrinal ideas. More so when Joseph Fielding Smith is on the committee too.
Were I asked to serve on the correlation committe, I can honestly say that I would also reject statements for publication that I actually agreed with. Time and a place.
raedyohed,
I like your statement and I think I will tweak it further.
"It shows the range of acceptable opinions within, and even published by, the Church at the time immediately following the stern 1909 statement, thus undercutting the notion that the 1909 Origin of Man statement completely ruled out evolution as an acceptable opinion regarding the creation of man's body."
This was excellent. Thanks for calling my attention to it.
Post a Comment